1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.95 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1331 OF 2007 Borivli Municipal Market Vyapari Seva Sangh ..Petitioner V/s. Shree Sai Darshan Borivli Mandal Vyapari Seva Sangh. ..Respondent. Mr.D.H.Mehta a/w.Usha Rohi i/b. Mayur Narendra & Co. for petitioner. Mr.K.K.Singhvi a/w. Shobha Ajithakumar for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr.Dhakephalkar i/b. Mark D’Mello for respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE DATE DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2008. : NOVEMBER 17, 2008. : NOVEMBER 17, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Grievance in this Petition is essentially one regarding breach of order of status quo dated 21st August, 2007, which was modified by the Division Bench in terms of the Order dated 5th May, 2008. In terms of the said Order, the Respondent is expected to maintain status quo with regard to the subject matter involved in the Writ Petition No.1331 of 2007. Indeed, the Corporation in its affidavit has conceded the position that meeting was held to consider 2 granting of contract and in principle decision was taken on 11th July, 2008, which is prior to 6th August, 2008. The fact remains that the affidavit asserts that the said decision taken by the Corporation was not acted upon. If it is so, there is no breach of order of status quo in the first place. Besides, the Writ Petition, in which the Order of status quo came to be passed, has been subsequently withdrawn on 6th August, 2008. With the withdrawal of the Writ Petition, effect of order of status quo would come to an end. 3. Suffice it to observe that on the facts of the present case, it is not possible to conclude that the Respondents have committed any contempt of order passed by the Single Judge or for that matter Division Bench referred to earlier. Hence it is not necessary to precipitate the present action. 4. Indeed, the Counsel for the Respondents contends that so far as the Petitioner herein is concerned, cannot be heard to complain about the contempt, as the Petitioner was not a party to the proceeding in Writ Petition No.1331 of 2007. It is not necessary to elaborate on this aspect. 5. This Petition is disposed of with liberty to 3 the Petitioner to question the correctness of the decision taken by the Corporation or any action taken by the Corporation on the basis of said decision by way of appropriate proceedings, as may be advised, which will be decided on its own merits in accordance with the law. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)