kbp 1 96-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITIOIN NO.96 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.196 OF 2009 Sadanand Atmaram Raut since deceased Smt.Savita Sadanand Raut ..Petitioner. Vs. Rahul Asthana and anr. ..Respondents ......... Mr.U.P.Warunjikar a/w.Mr.N.B.Patil, for petitioner. Mr.R.S.Pai a/w.Ms.K.Anchan i/b.M.V.Kini & Co., for first respondent. ......... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 9 th December, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The breach alleged is of an order dated 14th January, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench directed the first respondent to consider the application made by the original petitioner and to pass final order after hearing the original petitioner within four weeks from that day. The grievance in the petition filed by the original petitioner is that notwithstanding the said order, the first respondent did not hear the petitioner and did not pass any order. 2] The first respondent tendered an affidavit of one Mrs.L.M.Fernandes, the kbp 2 96-09.sxw Administrative Officer. To the said affidavit, copies of various letters issued to the original petitioner have been annexed. By letter dated 16th April, 2009, the original petitioner was called upon to attend hearing fixed on 28th April, 2009. On 23rd April, 2009, the original petitioner wrote to the Administrative Officer stating that since 23rd April, 2009, he was admitted to the K.E.M. Hospital and therefore, he would not be in a position to remain present on 28th April, 2009. There is a further communication issued to the petitioner. By the said letter, the petitioner was informed to communicate to the office of the Port Trust as and when he would be fit to attend the hearing to enable the Port Trust to fix the date of hearing. It is stated in the affidavit that there was no communication thereafter made by the petitioner. 3] Rejoinder of the present petitioner (legal representative of the original petitioner) is taken on record. The averments made in the reply show that the first respondent made sincere attempt to implement the order of this court, but the same could not be implemented as the original petitioner was not available for personal hearing. Learned counsel for the first respondent states that the concerned officer of the Port Trust is ready to give personal hearing to the present petitioner and to pass appropriate order. 4] In view of the steps taken by the first respondent as disclosed from the affidavit of the first respondent, no case is made out to initiate action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The first respondent is free to issue a notice to kbp 3 96-09.sxw the present petitioner to remain present for hearing. As and when such notice is received, the petitioner will remain present before the concerned authority to enable the concerned authority to pass appropriate order in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench. 5] Subject to what is observed above, the petition is disposed of. ( A.S.OKA, J. )