1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.145 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1835 OF 2006 Shree Digambar Co-operative Housing Society ...Petitioners Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.D.Mogre for Petitioner Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar for Respondent Nos.1,7 to 9 Mr.R.A. Thorat for Respondent No.4 and 5 Mr.Vaibhav Patankar i/b. Mr. A.A.Garge for Respondent No.6 CORAM: D.G.KARNIK, J. DATED: 8TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this Petition Petitioner has prayed that the action of contempt be taken against the Respondent No.1, Municipal Corporation, Mumbai and Respondent Nos.7 to 9, the officers of the Respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation for alleged breach of the order of the Division Bench dated 28th July 2006 passed in Writ Petition No.1835 of 2006 with Writ Petition No.1987 of 2006. 2 3. The grievance of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1835 of 2006 was that the Respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation was not acting on the notice issued in terms of Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Act and was not removing the construction in accordance with law. By an order dated 28 th July 2006 as modified by the order dated 8th August 2006 this Court had directed the Respondents to remove the said structure according to law after 4 weeks. The Court further directed the Respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation to decide the representation made by the Petitioner in the Writ Petition No.1987 of 2006 with Writ Petition No.1835 of 2006 within 8 weeks. 4. The officers of the Respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation issued notice to all concerned and decided the representations by an order dated 13 th February 2007. It is true that there has been some delay in deciding the representation and it was not decided within 8 weeks. However, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation has submitted that the delay was unintentional. There were many parties, notices were required to be issued to all parties the matter was required to be heard. It cannot be said that the delay was deliberate. The Respondents, in my view, cannot be punished in contempt for not deciding the representation in time as the 3 delay was not intentional and caused in the circumstances mentioned above. 5. Learned Counsel for the parties state that the order dated 13 th February 2007 has been challenged by the concerned, by filing the Writ Petition before the single Judge of this Court and the stay for demolition has been granted. In view of the stay granted, it cannot be said that the Respondents have committed deliberate breach of the order of the Division Bench by not carrying out the work of demolition. 6. The Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to move the Court again if necessary, after the stay granted by the single Judge is vacated. (D.G.KARNIK, J.)