1 35cp382-11 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 382 OF 2011 Yuvraj Dhondu Bhadane .. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar for the petitioner. Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP for respondent No.1 – State. Mr. Vijay Patil for respondent Nos.2 and 3. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : DECEMBER 9, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The breach alleged is of order dated 21st July, 2011. The said order reads thus: “1. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. It is obvious that neither the pendency of petition nor any order passed in the petition is likely to come in the way of the petitioner being considered for the promotion post, if otherwise he is eligible to be considered for the promotion post. Civil application is therefore disposed of.” 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to the remarks made on the proposal prepared by the administration of the Municipal Corporation for grant of promotion to the petitioner. He submits that the hand 2 35cp382-11 written decision or remark which is recorded on the said proposal is in breach of the order dated 21st July, 2011. 3. Perusal of the remark shows that it proposed that in view of an order passed by the Industrial Court on 20th October, 2010, the proposal should be kept in abeyance. It cannot be said from the said remark that the proposal for promotion is not being considered on account of pendency of the writ petition No.4685 of 2007 or the orders passed in the said petition. Therefore, no case is made out of breach of order dated 21st July, 2011. If the decision taken by the Municipal Corporation is erroneous, it is for the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings for challenging the same. 4. The petitioner has relied upon an opinion given in writing by a learned Senior Counsel of this Court to the Municipal Corporation. In my view, an opinion of a Senior Counsel given to the respondent-contemnor could not have been annexed to this Contempt Petition. 5. Subject to what is observed above, no case for initiation of action for contempt is made out. Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)