1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPEALLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Application No.11981 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 5681 of 2009 The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation ... Applicant V E R S U S Laxman s/o Yadavrao Shinde and others. ... Respondents ... Mrs.Manjusha A. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant Shri. D.P. Palodkar, Advocate for respondent No.1 Shri.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondent No.2 ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 23rd November, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel for Municipal Corporation filed communication of the Commissioner of Corporation made to the petitioner/respondent No.1 dated 16th November, 2009, which is taken on record and marked ‘X’. 3. The learned counsel Mrs. Deshpande submits that the petitioner filed contempt proceeding in this Court for non-compliance of the order passed, based on the statement made by the counsel 2 appearing for Corporation, which was recorded by the Division Bench of this Court on 27th August, 2009 in Writ Petition No.5681 of 2009. The learned counsel submits that due to intervening circumstances, the representation could not be decided, which are reflected in the application filed by the applicant. The applicant/Corporation is seeking two months extension for compliance of its statement made before this Court. The application was filed on 4th November, 2009. 4. Mr. Palodkar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner/respondent No.1 submits that the Corporation has exonerated all the concerned against whom the petitioner/respondent No.1 had grievance. 5. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. The petitioner/respondent No.1 may resort to appropriate remedies as available under Law. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) srm/ca11981/09 3 4