1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.7 of 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1763 of 2008 Iftikhar Ahmed Siddiqui ... Petitioner versus The Chief Officer,Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board, MHADA ... Respondent ... Mr.Ramesh Ramamurthy for the petitioner Mr.G.W. Mattos for the respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 22nd March 2010 P.C. 1. By this petition, petitioner prays for an action in contempt being taken against the respondent for breach of the order of a Division Bench dated 27th January 2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 273 of 2008. 2 2. Writ Petition No.1763 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner raising three grievances. One regarding refund of the money which was according to him charged in excess or in the alternative to allot excess area. Second in respect of a parking space and third in respect of removal of restriction imposed by a letter dated 21st February 2008. At the hearing of the Writ Petition the respondent represented that the grievance of the petitioner would be considered. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench with a direction to the respondents to take decision within six weeks. According to the petitioner, the decision was not taken within six weeks and therefore, the contempt petition has been filed. By filing an affidavit in reply, the respondent has denied the allegations. Respondent has stated on oath that decision was taken within six weeks. However, the file containing the decision was misplaced and therefore the decision was not communicated. In the affidavit, it is further stated that in view of this lapse, action has been taken against the concerned Officer who has been suspended. On reminder being sent by the petitioner, a fresh decision was taken on 11th February 2010 and a copy of the fresh decision has been annexed as Exhibit A to the affidavit in rejoinder dated 12th March 2010. The statement made in the affidavit that the decision was taken in time but the file was misplaced is accepted. In view of these peculiar circumstances, no action in contempt needs to be taken for the delay in taking of the fresh decision. It is however clarified that this condonation would 3 not act as a precedent and is limited to the facts of the present case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously pointed out that the decision is not in accordance with law. Without expressing any opinion about the correctness or otherwise of the decision, I can only say that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision, appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to challenge the said decision before an appropriate forum and no action in contempt would lie only on the ground that decision is erroneous. With this observation, contempt petition is disposed of. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)