cp40.09 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 40 OF 2009 Pandharinath s/o Pandurang Padole ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. P.K. Palve, advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. ..... CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. DATED: 21ST MARCH, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 The petitioner is alleging violation of order passed by this court while disposing of writ petition No. 4815 of 2008. This court after recording the statement made by learned A.G.P. for the respondent/State Government to the effect that concerned authority/Collector would take action in accordance with law and disposed of the writ petition. In the writ petition presented by the petitioners herein, direction was sought to initiate enquiry and to take appropriate action against all concerned in pursuance to the complaints annexed at Exhibit "A" and "B' to the writ petition. 2 In the complaints made to the Revenue authorities, including the Commissioner, the petitioner has made grievance in respect of cp40.09 -2- destruction of Nala/a small stream at the instance of adjoining owner. It is alleged in the application that the owner of Gat No.141 has caused damage to Nala with the help of JCB machine, as a result of which free flow of water is obstructed. It is not disputed that the State Government through Agricultural Department had initiated and completed the work of soil conservation in the village. After completion of work of soil conservation, the scheme is handed over to concerned group of agriculturists for maintenance. If anybody amongst them causes damage intentionally, the remedy available against such act is to approach the appropriate authorities or forum for taking penal action or any other remedial action. In the affidavit in reply presented by the Agricultural Officer, it is stated that the Department cannot take cognizance of the intentional act of the private party responsible for causing harm or damage to the work completed under the Soil Conservation Scheme. 3 In view of stand taken by respondents, which appears to be reasonable and proper, it cannot be inferred that the respondent authorities have committed intentional breach of the directions issued by this court. Contempt petition is devoid of substance and stands dismissed. ( R.M. BORDE. J.) rlj/ cp40.09 -3-