1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 213/2010 in WRIT PETITION NO. 3086/2009 (Mahesh Fruit Company vrs. Union of India) ................................................................................................................................................... ...... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... ...... Mrs. Neelam A. Biala, counsel for petitioner ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 26th OCTOBER, 2010. 1] This petition complains about willful disobedience/ breach of the order dated 18th June, 2910, passed by this Court in W.P. No. 3086/2009. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per order dated 18th June, 2010, the respondent – Railway Authorities were required to get the stalls on Platform Nos. 1, 2 and 3 at Nagpur Railway Station vacated immediately from the respondent no.5. She further submits that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 had also undertaken before this Court that they will take all steps 2 to get these stalls vacated after 10 weeks from 18th June, 2010. 2] She further submits that in view of the statements made by the respondents, the petitioner was expecting that the respondent – Railway Authorities shall put the petitioner in possession of the stalls and hence the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach appropriate forum if the petitioner is not put in possession of those stalls. She submits that this order has not been complied with as the petitioner is not put in possession of the stalls, but on the contrary, the plea is put forth by the Railway Authorities vide their communication dated 3.9.2010 that there is a change in the policy. 3] The question whether the changed policy applies to the case of the petitioner or not, is a matter independent, for which the petitioner can have appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum as has been observed by this Court in its order dated 18th June, 2010. Similarly, because the petitioner has not been given the possession of the stalls, that does not amount to contempt and the petitioner is at liberty to get his grievance redressed by approaching the appropriate 3 forum. 4] In view of above, there is no substance in the contempt petition, the same is dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit