1 conpw6-11.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Contempt Petition No. 6 of 2011 . in Writ Petition No.2316 of 2010 Ashok Kumar Shukla & Ors. .. Petitioners v/s. Swadhin Kshatriya, Municipal Commissioner & Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Anjali R. Awasthi for the Petitioners Ms.T.H.Puranik for the BMC CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 11th February, 2011 P.C. : 1. By Order dated 22.12.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.2316 of 2010 the petitioners herein were directed to submit representation to the Corporation and the Corporation was directed to decide the same within two weeks after the receipt of the representation from the petitioners. 2. The petitioners have alleged that the Corporation has committed 2 conpw6-11.sxw contempt of this Order. In support of the stand of the petitioners that they had submitted the representation to the petitioners, it is stated in this petition at para 4 that the said representation was submitted to the Municipal Commissioner and Assistant Municipal Commissioner and i.e. respondent nos.1 and 3. It is further stated that the true and correct copy of the said representation submitted on 27.12.2010 is annexed as Exhibit B. By relying upon this averment the petitioner contended that the representation was submitted on 27.12.2010. My attention was drawn to Exhibit D being the copy of the said representation said to have been submitted on 27.12.2010. I have perused the said Exhibit D. The said Exhibit D does not show that the letter in the original was served upon the Corporation. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the documents on which the receipt of the Corporation is obtained is not annexed to the petition. She sought time. 3. In my view, if it was the case of the petitioners that the representation was submitted on 27.12.2010, it was necessary for the petitioners to annex to this petition an appropriate document to show that the said petition was served upon the Corporation on a given day and in 3 conpw6-11.sxw particular on 27.12.2010 as claimed by them. It would be unsafe to allow the petitioners to produce some document subsequent to the filing of the petition as one may not be able to accept the said document as a genuine document. In my view, it was necessary for the petitioners to annex the necessary document evidencing the receipt of the said representation by the Corporation on a given date. In the absence of such document, I am not prepared to accept the bare word of the petitioner that the said representation was submitted to the Corporation on 27.12.2010. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite service of the said representation, the same is not disposed of within two weeks. Having doubted the stand of the petitioners that the representation was served upon the Corporation on 27.12.2010, in the normal course I would have been justified in dismissing the petition. However, in order to see that no injustice is caused to the petitioners, it would be proper to direct the Corporation to serve upon the petitioners their decision on the said representation within a period of 15 days from today presuming that the said representation is served upon them on 27.12.2010. 4 conpw6-11.sxw 5. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, following order is passed to dispose of the petition. ORDER i) Within 15 days from today, the Corporation shall serve upon the petitioner’s Advocate their decision on the representation dated 23.12.2010. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]