1 conp49-10.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Contempt Petition No. 49 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 907 of 1999 Aspi E. Tata & Anr. .. Petitioners v/s. The Ward Officer, D Ward, MCGB & Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Kumar Sheetal a/w. Ms. Pooja Joshi for the Petitioner Mr.K.K.Sanghvi, Sr. Counsel, Mr.S.S.Pakale with Ms.T.H.Puranik for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 11th February, 2011 P.C. : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners alleging that the respondents have violated the order passed by this Court dated 15.9.2009 in Writ Petition No.907 of 1999. Learned Counsel for the petitioners took me through the text of the order dated 15.9.2009 and immediately thereafter took me through the order passed by the Assistant 2 conp49-10.sxw Municipal Commissioner, D Ward, being order dated 23.11.2009. A copy of which is annexed at Exhibit C to the petition. 2. On perusal of the order dated 15.9.2009 it is noticed that the Corporation was directed to decide whether the Zunka Bhakar Stall of the respondent no.8 was on the footpath or otherwise. And if it was so found that it was on the footpath, the Corporation was required to remove the same. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, by reading the order dated 23.11.2009 submitted that the concerned Officer of the Corporation has recorded finding that the said Zunka Bhakar stall is on the footpath. She further pointed out that the concerned officer has applied certain circulars issued by the Corporation and sought to protect the Zunka Bhakar Stall and by passing the operative orders as follows : “The Zunka Bhakar Kendra of the respondent no.8 need not be singled out for removal in view of the policy circulars in this respect, its peculiar site conditions and other facts of this case in view of the reasons mentioned in the above paragraphs” 3 conp49-10.sxw She submitted that by passing the operative order the concerned Commissioner, D Ward, has committed contempt. 4. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Singhvi appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that it was open for the petitioners to challenge the order dated 23.11.2009 if they were aggrieved, as the very order dated 15.9.2009 specifically mentions that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the Order which may be passed, they are free to challenge the same. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Singhvi contended that there is nothing like contempt having been committed by the concerned officer who passed the order dated 23.11.2009 and that the petition is required to be dismissed. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order dated 23.11.2009, they are free to challenge the same in accordance with the provisions of law. 5. I have perused the order dated 23.11.2009. Nodoubt, it indicates that the concerned Officer held that the Zunka Bhakar stall is on the footpath. However, he has thereafter carried out exercise and passed an operative order which is mentioned as aforesaid. It would not be proper for me to express any views on the merits of the order. 4 conp49-10.sxw However, fact is clear that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the Order, they are free to challenge it before the appropriate forum. Merely because the concerned Officer has passed the order dated 23.11.2009, it cannot be said that the said Officer of the Corporation has committed contempt. It was possible to say that the contempt was committed if the concerned officer would have stopped after recording the finding that the Zunka Bhakar is on the footpath and the Corporation has not taken any action for the removal of the stall. In the substance, I hold that neither the concerned officer nor any other employee of the Corporation has committed the contempt. Hence there is no need of admitting this petition. It is clarified that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the text of the Order dated 23.11.2009, they are free to challenge the same before the Appropriate Forum. 6. In view of the above, the following Order is passed to dispose of the contempt petition. ORDER i) Petition is dismissed. 5 conp49-10.sxw ii) No views are expressed on the Order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the Corporation. It is clarified that the petitioners are free to challenge the order dated 23.11.2009 before the Appropriate Forum. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]