1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.125 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1512 OF 1994 Jehangir @ Badruddin Alibhoy Mohammed .... Petitioner. V/s The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors. ..... Respondents. Ms. K.P. Reshma Ravi for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pakale with Ms. T.H. Puranik for respondents. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 16TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents – Corporation. 2. Petitioner alleges non-compliance of the order dated 05/01/2009. It is submitted that by the said order, directions were given to the Corporation viz (i) to remove the illegal encroachments, after Commissioner submits his report within six weeks in accordance with law and (ii) the Assistant Commissioner, ‘G’ North Ward was asked to look into the 2 claim of the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks. 3. Counsel for the Corporation submitted that the matter, thereafter, was heard by the Court on 04/03/2009 and the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation has brought to the notice of the Court that the property in question has been declared as slum and Notification to that effect had been issued. He submitted that, in view of this, the Court had, by consent of parties, disposed of the Writ Petition. However, liberty was granted to the parties to challenge the correctness of the provisions and notification before the appropriate authority in appropriate proceedings. 4. In my view, in view of the subsequent order which is passed by this Court dated 04/03/2009, it cannot be said that Officers of the respondents - Corporation had committed contempt of this Court. In view of the Notification which has been issued under the Slums Act, the Corporation or its Officers, firstly, could not have been in a position to demolish the illegal construction and, secondly, on account of Notification having been issued, the Petitioner ceases to be the owner of the said property and, therefore, question of the Assistant Commissioner ‘G’ North Ward deciding his application also did not arise. The Division Bench, after having noticed this fact, disposed of the Petition and, therefore, earlier directions were impliedly modified. There is no substance in the submissions made by the learned 3 Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Contempt Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 5. Needless to state that it is always open for the Petitioner to challenge the issuance of Notification under the Slums Act and a specific liberty has been given by Division Bench to that effect. It is submitted that the Notification under the Slums Act was issued in 2007 and it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench only on 4/3/2009 on which date Petitioner herein also became aware of the said Notification. It is always open for the petitioner to point out this fact and explain the delay caused in filing a fresh Petition for challenging the Notification which is issued. 6. Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4