1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.118 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2294 OF 2008 Abdul Aziz Lais Mohammed Khan .. Petitioner versus Mr.Gilande, Stamp Collector, MSD & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Girish Godbole a/w Ms.Navneet Chahal for the petitioner. Mr.G.W.Mattos, A.G.P for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11th December 2009. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.G.P for the State. The breach alleged is of the order dated 5th December 2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2292 of 2008. The learned A.G.P has tendered additional compilation. The direction of the Division Bench was to decide three representations at Exhibits J, N and O to the writ petition. Exhibit J is a representation which was addressed to the 3rd respondent i.e Superintendent of Land Records. The representation at Exhibit N was addressed to the stamp collector who was the 1st respondent in the writ petition and in this petition and the third representation dated 23rd July 2008 was addressed to Tahsildar, Andheri who is the 4th respondent herein. 2. The additional compilation shows that the representation made to the 2 stamp collector has been decided on 8th December 2009. The representation made by the Superintendent of Land Records has been decided on 7th December 2009. The Tahsildar has decided representation by order dated 2nd December 2009. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a grievance that the communications which are referred to in the order dated 8th December 2009 passed by the stamp collector have not been served to the petitioner. However, all these aspects cannot be gone into in a contempt petition. The learned A.G.P on instructions state that notwithstanding the said communication dated 8th December 2009, the petitioner can always make a fresh application for adjudication. 4. It is true that the representations have not been decided expeditiously in terms of the order dated 5th December 2008. Though belatedly, now a compliance has been made. This is not a case where proceedings can be initiated against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. If the petitioner has any grievance about the orders, he can always adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. As stated earlier, the petitioner can always make a fresh application for adjudication. Subject to what is observed above, the contempt petition is disposed of. 5. The concerned respondents have filed affidavits tendering apology. (A.S.OKA,J)