SSK/1000 1 cp.446.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 446 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4075 OF 2010 CIDCO Masjid Trust ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. S. G. Kudle, Advocate for the petitioner., Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. A. M. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3. Mr. V. A. Gangal with Vindu P Pandey and Ms. Charanjeet Kaur Nirmale, Advocate for respondent no.4. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 29th APRIL, 2011. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By an Order dated 7th May, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 4075 of 2010, a Division Bench of this Court directed respondent no.4 to consider the representation preferred by the petitioner dated 1st February, 2010 within a period of three months from the date of the order. The respondent no.4 has filed an affidavit on 15th December, 2010. The respondent no.4 contends that the petitioner’s representation is decided by an order dated 20th August, 2010. The said order is annexed at Exhibit SSK/1000 2 cp.446.10 “R-6” to the the said affidavit. Under the said order, the 4th respondent came to the conclusion that it is the responsibility of the CIDCO to make available land for burial ground to the Muslim Community. The validity and legality of this order cannot be gone into by filing contempt petition. The petitioner is always at liberty to challenge this order. However, no case for contempt is made out. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)