1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.9 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1622 OF 2008 Sunil R. Choudhari .. Petitioner Versus Gautam Chatargi, Vice President MHADA and Anr. .. Respondents Mr.V.M.Thorat for petitioner Mr.G.Mattos, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 23rd March 2009. P.C. . During the course of hearing of this petition, learned A.G.P. Mr.Mattos appearing for respondents produced for my perusal a copy of the order dated 2nd April 2008 passed by the Chief Officer, Mumbai Board. This order directs that in terms of the recommendations made by the Education Inspector, Western Zone, Mumbai on 22nd June 2006, children of the petitioner should be 2 admitted by the concerned school in the classes to which they are seeking admission. 2. Learned A.G.P. apologises to the Court for not being able to produce this communication when the order dated 21st July 2008 was passed. He also states that a copy of this order was duly forwarded to the petitioner as also other parties to the petition. It is once again served on the petitioner by R.P.A.D. on 21st March 2009. 3. Petitioner’s Advocate disputes receipt of this communication or the order. 4. Be that as it may, now that a copy of the order has been produced for my perusal, it is clear that the order passed by the Division Bench has been complied with. I accept the statement of Mr.Mattos that due to inadvertence and communication gap the Division Bench could not be informed about this development. In any event, 3 this is not a case where there is no compliance made with the order of the Division Bench. 5. Considering the facts peculiar to this case and noticing that the order has been passed already nothing survives in this contempt petition and the same is disposed of. A copy of the order dated 2nd April 2008 along with communication of MHADA dated 21st March 2009 is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. 6. Needless to state that merits of the order need not be gone into in this jurisdiction. It would be open for the petitioner to take such steps as are permissible in law to challenge the order of MHADA if he is so advised. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)