1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.21 OF 2009 IN PUBLIC INT.LITIGATION NO.107 OF 2007 Shree Sanatan Dharam Education Society and Anr. .. Petitioners Versus The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Rustomji i/b.V.K.Khanavkar and K.B.Dighe for petitioners Mrs.Puranik for Corporation. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 12th March 2009. P.C. . This contempt petition alleges that the order dated 18th September 2008, a copy of which is annexed at pages 14 to 16 of this petition has been deliberately and wilfully breached and violated by the respondents. 2. On the last occasion, time was sought on behalf of the respondents to take instructions. 2 3. It is stated that an order dated 20th February 2008 has been passed by the Municipal Corporation. However, it is brought to my notice by Mr.Rustomji that this order was served on 4th March 2009. 4. There is no time limit set to implement Court’s direction in the subject order. However, considering the nature of the direction and expectation of the Court that the Corporation would take a decision on the acquisition proposal, the least that could be said is that the Corporation takes an early decision. Despite several difficulties, including grant of personal hearing to interested parties, the decision was not taken from September 2008 till 4th March 2009. 5. The communication of 4th March 2009 is during the pendency of this contempt petition. 3 When these state of affairs were brought to the notice of Corporation’s Advocate, she tenders apology for the delay on behalf of the Corporation in disposing of the request of the petitioner. She states that the Corporation will ensure that the orders of such nature and directions with regard to matters of acquisition for public purposes would be hereafter dealt with, with the sense of urgency that is expected in these matters. She assures the Court that unreasonable and unexplained delay in such cases would not be a recurrence. 6. In the light of the apology for the delay tendered and further assurances given, it is not necessary to pursue this contempt petition any further. However, the attention of Corporation’s Advocate is invited to the order of this Court in Notice of Motion No.229 of 2008 in W.P.No.1042 of 2008 passed on 18th June 2008 so also the observations of Supreme Court in the decisions 4 reported in A.I.R.1988 S.C. 1025 (Bigyan Kumar and Ors. Vs.Union of India and Ors.) and A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1390 (State of Bihar & Ors. Vs.Subhash Singh). Petition dismissed. In the light and facts peculiar to this case no costs. 7. Needless to state that merits of the order dated 4th March 2009 can always be impugned and challenged in substantive proceedings and all contentions in that behalf are kept open. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)