( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 290 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 763 OF 1989 Madhukar s/o. Namdeo Pawar .. Petitioner Versus The District Collector, Latur & ors. .. Respondents Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.L. Kute, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 6b. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 31.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni for the petitioner and Adv. Shri R.L. Kute for respondent Nos. 2 to 6b. Adv. Mrs. Kulkarni drew my attention to order dated 23.09.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 763 of 1989. In para 16 of the order the Court has given following directions:- “16. In the result, Writ Petition succeeds. The impugned order passed by the Collector on 03.02.1989 is quashed and set aside. ( 2 ) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause “C” with no order as to costs. However, it will be open for the allottees i.e. respondent Nos. 3 to 6 to apply for allotment of other land to them. As and when such application is made, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law thereon. Needless to observe that this judgment and order would not constitute a bar for consideration of such application.” 2. Adv. Mrs. Kulkarni argued that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were given permission to approach the Collector for allotment of other land and they were not given any permission to file appeal against order refusing delimitation by the Tribunal under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, and inspite of that Appeal No. 22/A/2007 was filed before the Commissioner challenging the order of S.L.D.T. It is argued that when the writ petition is pending, filing of appeal is abuse of process of Court. No liberty to file such appeal was filed and discipline and administration should be maintained. 3. This Court does not want to enter into the question whether filing of the appeal was justified or was abuse of process of the Court. But, one thing is clear that filing such appeal and thereby resorting to legal remedy, whether ( 3 ) tenable or not, will not be a contempt of Court; particularly in view of para 16 reproduced above. 4. In view of above, this Contempt Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, it is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the matter. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/cp290.07