1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.84 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4892 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders Mr.P.D.Bachate, learned counsel for petitioners. Mr.B.V.Wagh, learned AGP for respondent State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 30th MARCH 2010 Heard learned counsel for petitioner. According to learned counsel for petitioner, while disposing Writ Petition No.4892/2009, dated 28/07/2009, option was given to the petitioner to make the representation before respondent no.4,5 and 6 and in case the representation is filed, it is to be decided in accordance with Law. According to the counsel, the representation is submitted, but it is not decided by respondent no.4,5 and 6. Hence they are before this Court. Read the order passed in W.P.No.4892/2009, dated 28/07/2009, to which this Court is also a 2 party. No doubt, while passing the order, liberty was given to the petitioner to make representation before respondent no.4,5 and 6 and it is the respondent no.4,5 and 6 to deal with the same in accordance with Law, but no stipulated time is given, within which such representation to be decided by respondent no.4,5 and 6. It appears that this order was passed in July 2009. Some representations were filed in the month of December 2009 and according to the petitioner, before deciding these representations, the construction work commenced. The proper remedy is to file suit for injunction and not a contempt petition. As no stipulated period is given, in which the representation to be decided, it can not be said that there is deliberate and intentional dis-obedience at the hands of these authorities. No case made out even to issue notice to the respondents. Petition dismissed in limine. Petitioner is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy before the proper forum. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAR 2010/cp84-10