1 CP-49-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 49 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8345 OF 2008 Nitin Madhukar Chogule .. Petitioner Vs. Dr. Jagdish Patil & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. D.W.Bhosale, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Ujwala Sawant, i/b. Shri Sarang S.Aradhye,Advocate for the respondent No. 4. Shri A.I.I. Patel, GP, for the respondent No.5. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 7th October, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Collector, Solapur, had passed an order dated 10.12.2008 extending the contract for excavation of Sand in favour of one Dattatraya Ganpat Chavan for further period of 39 days from 11.12.2008 to 18.1.2009. That order was found to be in violation of the Government circulars and, therefore, in Writ Petition No.8345 of 2008 filed by the present petitioner, this Court, by order dated 24.12.2008, had stayed the order of the Collector. On 7.1.2009, the petitioner filed this Contempt Petition contending that inspite of the order passed by the Court, the respondents have allowed the contractor to excavate and remove sand. 2 CP-49-09.sxw The petition was supported by the photographs taken on 30.12.2008, 31.12.2008, 1.1.2009 and 6.1.2009. 3. Respondent No.3 - Baburao S. Pawar, Tahasildar, Pandharpur and Dr. Jagdish Patil, Collector of Solapur, filed their affidavits on 13.3.2009 and 3.4.2009 denying that there was any breach of the Court's order. According to them, on 24.12.2008 itself, Mr. D.Ranganatharao, Mining Officer, who was present in the Court while passing the order, had communicated the said order to Tahsildar on the same day and the directions were given to stop the work. The contractor Dattatraya Chavan also returned unused transit passes book along with his letter dated 24.12.2008 and thus the order passed by the High Court was fully complied with on the same day. In view of the photographs produced by the petitioner, it appears that inspie of the directions given by the Collector and Tahsildar, possibly, the contractor had not stopped the work. As per the affidavits in reply by the Collector and Tahsildar, on 13.1.2009, the contractor brought 14 trucks to remove the sand lying at the site and on getting information, the Circle Officer lodged FIR against the contractor and the truck owner and crime No.11/2009 was registered under Sections 420, 467,468, 470 and 471, I.P.C. On 13.1.2009, all the trucks and sand in the said trucks were also seized. In view of the reply, I am satisfied that the order of the Court was complied by the Collector and Tahsildar. 3 CP-49-09.sxw It appears that the contractor tried to excavate the sand and remove the same. Therefore, the authorities have taken criminal action against him, including seizure of the trucks and sand. Therefore, it cannot be said that the authorities have failed to obey the order of the Court. I do not find any material to hold that the Collector, Tahsildar or the Mining Officer had committed contempt of the Court. 4. As far as the contractor is concerned, the authorities had taken criminal action and therefore that will take care for the illegalities committed by him. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the Petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)