1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.91 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1053 OF 2004 Kurla Kamgar Co-op. Society Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Deputy Chief Engineer & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Madhu Hiraskar i/b. M/s.Chitnis Vaithy & Co. for the Petitioner. Ms.T.S.Puranik for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Milind Sathe, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Geeta Shastri, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. June 18, 2009. P.C. The Learned AGP appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 has stated before the Court that in pursuance of the previous order dated 25th February 2009 passed by the Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari, the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District has passed an order dated 24th March 2009. A copy of the order has been placed on the record together with the affidavit of the Collector dated 8th April 2009. By his order, the Collector has withdrawn his earlier letter dated 10th April 2008 addressed to the Executive 2 Engineer (Building Proposals), Eastern Suburbs. The Learned Counsel submits that the grievance of the Petitioner is that though an order was passed by the Collector, it was not communicated to the Municipal Corporation and as a result thereof, the Municipal Corporation is unable to take steps to process the proposal for development. The Learned AGP states that a copy of the order passed by the Collector has already been placed on the record of these proceedings and that it would consequently be open to the Municipal Corporation to take steps in terms of the order. However, it has been stated that by way of abundant caution, a copy of the order shall also be served on the Executive Engineer (Building Proposals), Eastern Suburb, within a period of one week from today. The Learned AGP has stated that the Third and Fourth Respondents shall take all necessary steps to abide by the directions that were issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 6th July 2004. In these circumstances, since the grievance of the Petitioner has been duly met, it would not be expedient to pursue the contempt proceedings any further. In the event that the Petitioner is 3 aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector, the present order shall not come in the way of the Petitioner seeking recourse to such remedies as are available in law to challenge that order. The Contempt Petition is disposed of. ......