1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.201 OF 2007 Smt.Kamalabai Satish Sanghavi & Anr. : Petitioners. versus Shri Shivaji Shankar Kapare : Respondent. Shri.Niranjan P Shimpi for the Petitioners. Shri Sagar Joshi for the Respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JANUARY 07, 2009 P.C. 1. By the above Contempt Petition, the Petitioners allege contempt of the order dated 2nd March 2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the Writ Petition No.2675 of 2004. By the said order, in terms of clause (3), the Chief Officer of Respondent No.3 to the said Petition was directed to consider the objections that would be filed by the Petitioners in respect of the construction carried out by the Respondent No.1-Society to the said Petition, by hearing the Petitioners and the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the said Petition and, thereafter to disposed of the same according to same. In terms of 2 clause (4) of the said order, it was directed that if the objections are rejected, then to consider the building proposal as submitted by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and to pass appropriate orders therein within four weeks thereafter. In terms of clause (6) of the said order, it was directed that if the building permission is refused, the Respondent No.3 to take steps in law to remove the illegal construction after due notice to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The gravamen of the allegations in the above Contempt Petition is that the action in terms of clause (6) of the said order dated 2nd March 2005 has not been taken by the Chief Officer, though the construction is in breach of the bye-laws applicable to “C” Class Municipalities. 3. On behalf of the Respondent No.1, an Affidavit in Reply has been filed wherein it has been stated that the Petitioners' objections have been rejected by an order dated 8th April 2005 after according an opportunity of hearing to the parties. In so far as development proposal submitted by the Respondent No.1 to the earlier Petition is 3 concerned, in Para 4 of the said Affidavit in Reply, it has been stated that the said proposal has been sanctioned vide order dated 29th April 2005 for the construction of Balak Bhavan and Multipurpose Hall. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners relies upon the order dated 5th October 2006 passed by the Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No.8448 of 2005 filed by the Petitioners challenging the sanction order dated 29th April 2005. By the said order dated 5th October 2006 the Petitioners were granted liberty to file a Contempt Petition if the order dated 29th April 2005 according sanction to the development proposal was found to be in breach of the directions issued in Writ Petition No.2675 of 2004. It has also been observed by the Division Bench in the said order dated 5th October 2006 that the Petitioners have an alternate remedy by way of appeal under Section 47 of the M.R.T.P. Act 1966. The Division Bench therefore did not deem it fit to entertain the said Writ Petition No.8448 of 2005. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioners in the above 4 Contempt Petition has sought to make submission as regards the merits of the order dated 8th April 2005 passed by the Chief Officer rejecting the objections filed by the Petitioners. 6. In my view, considering the Affidavit in Reply filed by the Respondent No.1 Chief Officer, the directions of the Division Bench in the order dated 2nd March 2005 have been complied with. If the Petitioners are aggrieved by rejection of their objections by the order dated 8th April 2005 passed by the Chief Officer or sanction of the development proposal of the Respondent No.1, the Petitioners would be at liberty to file such proceedings are as permissible in law. 7. Considering the consceptus of facts as above, no case for proceeding against the Respondents is made out. The above Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]