1 43.conpw.28.2009.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION skt CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 28 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITIONNO. 2251 OF 2004 Kalina Recreation & Sports Club & Ors. ..Petitioners vs. U.D.Mistry & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Ms.Aparna Murlidharan for the petitioners. Mr.Suresh Pakale a/w. Ms.Trupti Puranik-for the B.M.C., respondent nos. 1 to 4. .... CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 5TH APRIL, 2010 P. C. 1 Admit. 2 By this petition, the petitioners prays for taking action in contempt against respondent nos. 1 to 3, for willfully disobeying the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 24th July 2006. The operative part of the order passed by the Division Bench on 24th July 2010 in Writ Petition No. 2251 of 2004 is quoted hereinbelow : 2 43.conpw.28.2009.sxw “(1) Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to intimate to Petitioner No. 1 their requirement including the costs of demarcation and call on the Petitioners to bear the cost of the said demarcation and other incidental expenses. If the Petitioners, are agreeable to bear the costs for demarcation and other incidental expenses, then to proceed to act in terms of the existing rules for handing over of the play ground to private organization. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to intimate to the Petitioners, within twelve weeks from today what they have to pay to commence the process of handing over the and thereafter to complete the process at the earliest. If the Petitioners comply with the requirements, the exercise to be completed not latter than six months from today. With the above directions, Petition stands disposed of. ” 3 According to the petitioners, respondent nos. 1 to 3 have not carried out the demarcation. The order dated 24 th July 2006 did not cast a duty on the respondents to carry out the demarcation, but the respondents were only to intimate the petitioners the cost of demarcation which was to be carried out by the City Survey Office. The respondents intimated to the 3 43.conpw.28.2009.sxw petitioners, the cost of the demarcation vide letter dated 17th October 2006. On deposit of the charges, the City Survey Office informed that the measurement of demarcation were to be carried out on 14th October 2008. On that date, the demarcation was not carried out by the City Survey Office. It is thus clear that the respondents have not committed breach of the order. 4 Mr.Pakale, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that only after demarcation was carried out, the plot was to be handed over to the petitioners as per the then existing policy of the Corporation. The petitioners did not deposited the charges for carrying out demarcation in time. In the meanwhile, the policy changed which dis-entitled the petitioners for allotment. In view of this change in the policy, the City Survey Office did not carry out the demarcation. 5 Whatever may be the reason for not carrying out the demarcation by the City Survey Office, be it the change in the policy or any other account, the fact remains that the City 4 43.conpw.28.2009.sxw Survey Office did not carry out the demarcation for which the respondents are not responsible. As such, there is no breach committed by the respondents. Hence the Contempt Petition is dismissed summarily. [ D.G. KARNIK, J. ]