1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 92 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 140 OF 2008 Vishnu Keshav Patel ..Petitioner versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Diwakar Dwivedi for the Petitioner. Ms. Trupti Puranik for the Respondents. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : JUNE 16, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the fact that the petitioner had approached this Court by way of writ petition instituted on 30th July 2008 and intimation whereof was given to the Law Officer, the Corporation proceeded to demolish the disputed structure on 2nd August 2008. This does not amount to civil contempt unless the petitioner is able to show that there was some order operating in his favour restraining the Officers of the Corporation to forebear from demolishing the suit structure. It is noticed that earlier the petitioner had challenged action of the Corporation by way of writ petition which came to be disposed of on 9th 2 January 2008. The petitioner was given liberty to apply for regularisation of his structure. He did avail of that liberty by making application, which the Corporation however found to be incomplete and defective. That position was communicated to the petitioner long back. On 12th May 2008 the petitioner once again submitted the same representation which did not fulfil the requirements of the earlier direction issued by the Corporation. According to the petitioner the communication dated 30th May 2008 sent by the Corporation was duly received by him soon after its issuance. That communication gave cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the opinion of the Corporation that regularisation of the disputed premises was not possible. The petitioner did not choose to challenge the said decision of the Corporation but entered into further correspondence and eventually filed writ petition only on 30th July 2008. The effect of the order passed by this Court on 9th January 2008 came to an end after expiry of one week from receipt of communication of the Corporation dated 30th May 2008. It is not the case of the petitioner that the subsequent writ petition was within that time or the demolition was carried out within that time. Thus understood it is not a case for initiating action of civil contempt committed by the Corporation. Rejected. (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)