1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- WRIT CONTEMPT No. 47 of 2008 HANUMAN PRASAD V/S SHIV KUMAR & ANR. Mr. NS ACHARYA for Mr. BL PUROHIT, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. KK BISSA, for the respondent Date of Order : 3.3.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that against the order of the Municipality, which was order passed by the Chairman, Executive Officer had no power to file revision before the revisional authority, which has been allowed; It is secondly contended that, in view of the Division Bench judgment, wherein it has been said, that if the Municipality decides against the petitioner, the petitioner is free to avail such remedy which may be available to him to establish his title, and in case Municipality decides the matter in favour of the petitioner such eventuality will not arise. According to the learned counsel, this direction clearly means, that if the Municipality decides the matter in favour of petitioner, the matter was to come 2 to an end, and no revision could be filed against that order, and since revision had been filed that amounts to contemnt. In our view, either of the contentions cannot be accepted. So far as the matter coming to an end in the event of Municipality deciding in favour of the petitioner is concerned, a proper reading of the order only means, that if the matter was to be decided in favour of the petitioner the eventuality of the petitioner being free to avail such remedy obviously would not arise, but then, the order no- where contemplates, that if the metter is decided in favour of the petitioner, the order would not be open to challenge in hierarchy, in accordance with law. Therefore, mere filing of revision by itself cannot be said to be tantamounting to contempt. So far as the other submission about the Executive Officer's power to file revision is concerned, in our view, it is not a ground whereon it can be said, that any contempt is made out. If the petitioner felt, that the revision was not filed by competent authority, what would have been the remedy to assail the same, is not for us to advise. 3 Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /sushil/