6b. wp 4762-08 & Ors.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4762 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1691 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 500 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1622 OF 2011 Niti Ratansi Bhate (Merchant) .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4757 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 503 OF 2010 Deepak Kantilal Parikh & Ors .. Petitioners Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5640 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1689 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 499 OF 2010 Electra Estates Pvt Ltd & Ors .. Petitioners Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents 1 6b. wp 4762-08 & Ors.doc And Vyesa Sival Dass .. Applicant Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Sr. Counsel i/b Mr. K.S. Dewal for the Petitioners & Applicant in CA 1622/11 Mr. V.D. Patil, G.P for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. Suraj Jain & Mr. Vaibhav A. Sugdare i/b Ms. Punam N. Shirgaonkar for Respondent No. 3 and Applicant in CA 499/10, CA 500/10 & CA 503/10 Mr. Ahmed Abdi i/b M/s. Abdi Wagh & Co for the Intervener in CA 1684/11, CA 1626/11 and CA 1690/11 Mr. Diren Hemanand Naidu i/b Mr. P.J. Thorat for Intervener in CA 1685/11, CA 1691/11 and CA 1689/11 CORAM : D. D. SINHA & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ DATE : 17th AUGUST, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The Writ Petitions are directed against the order dated 3rd June 2008 passed by the Collector, Pune which reads thus:- "That as stated in the order, proposal Nos. 1 and 3 are allowed as per the proposed revised changes and necessary action and implementation should be done by the Assistant Director, Town Planning and Tahsildar" 3. The learned AGP has submitted that the impugned order dated 3rd June 2008 has been withdrawn by the Collector and 2 6b. wp 4762-08 & Ors.doc therefore, the cause of action involved in the Writ Petitions no more survives and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition as infructious. 4. The learned senior counsel at this stage has brought to our notice the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 19th November 2008 in the bunch of these Writ Petitions which reads thus:- "1. Rule. Respective learned counsel waives notice of the Rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. The Collector shall restore the position of the land in question as it existed before passing of the impugned order." 5. The learned senior counsel has submitted that since the Collector failed to comply with this order and did not take any steps to restore the position of the land in question as it was existed before passing of the impugned oder, the petitioners invoked the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act before the learned single Judge who has taken cognizance thereof and vide order dated 2nd February 2011, in para 11 has observed thus:- "11. In my view, prima facie case has been made out by the petitioners for issuance of show cause notice to the Collector at this stage. Hence issue show cause notice to 3 6b. wp 4762-08 & Ors.doc the Collector in prescribed form as to why the action should not be taken for passing the order dated 1st October 2010 which is annexed to Exhibit T to Contempt Petition No. 5 of 2011 for violating the order and thereby committing breach of the order dated 19th November 2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 5640 of 2009 with Writ Petition Nos. 4762 of 2008 and 4757 of 2008 and why he should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In my view, the ad-interim order which is passed by this Court by the order dated 19.11.2008 will have to be confirmed. 12. Accordingly, the ad-interim order which is passed by this Court by the order dated 19.11.2008 is hereby confirmed. Stand over to 9.3.2011" The learned senior counsel has submitted that the proceedings initiated against the Collector under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act are pending. 6. So far as the present Writ Petitions are concerned, challenge is to the validity and propriety of the order dated 3rd June 2008 passed by the Collector and therefore, the cause of action necessarily pertains to the order of Collector dated 3rd June 2008. The learned AGP has made a categorical statement in 4 6b. wp 4762-08 & Ors.doc the affidavit dated 9th August 2011 filed by the Collector, Pune wherein it is specifically stated on oath by the Collector that the impugned order dated 3rd June 2008 has been withdrawn by the Collector by passing the order dated 4th March 2011 which has been approved and sanction has been granted by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division vide order dated 5th April 2011. In view of this undisputed position, we are of the view that the cause of action in the present Writ Petitions no more survives. However, so far as the proceedings initiated by the petitioners under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act pending before the appropriate Court being independent, the question of expressing any opinion in respect of the same in the present petition does not arise. 7. For the reason stated herein above, the Writ Petitions are disposed of as infructuous. Hence, the Civil Applications filed in respective Writ Petitions do not survive, and are also disposed of accordingly. [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J ] [ D. D. SINHA, J ] 5 6b. wp 4762-08 & Ors.doc 6