1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 186/2005 IN W.P.No. 3928/2000 (Pruthviraj Laxman Bhivgade Versus The State of Maharashtra & another ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. J.M. Shamkuwar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.W. Sambre, Government Pleader for the R-1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 11, 2008. Heard. By this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondent no.2 in accordance with the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for having committed contempt by disobeying the orders passed by this Court on 02.07.2003 in Writ Petition No.3928/2000. It appears that this Court had, by an order dated 02.07.2003, disposed of Writ Petition No.3928/2000 on the basis of a report of Tahsildar dated 06.05.2001 filed by the Assistant Government Pleader on record which pertained to the allotment of plots which was the subject matter of the writ petition. On the basis of the report dated 06.05.2001, it appears that the learned Assistant Government Pleader made a 2 statement that the respondent had already been allotted one plot and since there were no vacant plots available for other two petitioners, the case of the petitioner nos.2 and 3 would be considered for allotment when vacant plots were made available. The petitioner no.1 in Writ Petition No.3928/2000 has filed this contempt petition as according to the petitioner, this Court had recorded that the report of the Tahsildar would be implemented and enforced in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, necessary formalities for allotment of plot to the petitioner were not completed by the Tahsildar and the concerned authorities, and hence, it was necessary to take action against the respondent no.2 under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Sub Divisional Officer had accorded sanction to the Tahsildar's report dated 07.07.2005 and had further directed the Tahsildar to issue notices to the 28 persons who could be allotted plots in view of the report dated 07.07.2005. On the basis of the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer, the Tahsildar issued a notice to the petitioner asking the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.52,692/- for the regularisation of 3 the plot encroached by the petitioner. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that though the said notice was duly served on the petitioner on 10.09.2005, the petitioner failed to deposit the amount of Rs.52,692/- till this date. Shri Shamkuwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute this aspect of the matter. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the respondents have not disobeyed the orders passed by this Court on 02.07.2003 in Writ Petition No.3928/2000 in any manner whatsoever. The contempt petitioner is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE APTE