( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 242 OF 2009 Pradeep s/o. Madhav Mate .. Petitioner Versus Sudha w/o. Babasaheb Jangam and ors. .. Respondents Shri S.S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 06.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri S.S. Chapalgaonkar for the petitioner. He draws my attention to Cluase (iv) of the final order passed in Writ Petition No. 5603 of 2007, decided on 15.01.2008. It is as follows:- “(iv) It is needless to state that the pendency of the present proceedings shall not come in the way of the respondent/Municipal Council to take such steps as are permissible either under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act or the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act.” ( 2 ) 2. It is complaint of the present petitioner that inspite of six reminders the Municipal Council is not taking any steps. At the same time the contempt petitioner has also produced notice dated 09.01.2007 at Exh. “D” issued to respondent No.1 for stoppage and removal of demolition of construction made in excess of the permission granted. After said notice, there is another letter dated 17.04.2007 issued by the Municipal Council, Kopargaon to respondent No.1 reminding her about written undertaking dated 14.03.2007 to remove the excess construction and it is mentioned therein that if she does not comply with the undertaking, the Municipal Council will take necessary steps at the costs of respondent No.1. At Exh. “F” there is letter given by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council to Adv. Shri N.B. Patil, who was legal advisor of the Municipal Council seeking legal advice if particular steps could be taken under certain contingencies without there being disobedience of the orders of the Court. It appears that the Municipal Council is considering the matter. Moreover Clause (iv) referred to above, gives liberty to the Municipal Council and does not give any direction which by way of contempt petition, can be executed. It is also clear from earlier part of the order ( 3 ) that Civil Suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 86 of 2006 is also pending. In this view of the matter, this Contempt Petition cannot be entertained as there does not appear to be any direction which is willfully disobeyed. 3. Therefore, the Contempt Petition is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/cp242.09