1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.122 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2915 OF 2005 Bankey Harkishan Aggarwal .. Petitioner versus Dy.Collector (ENC) & Ors. .. Respondents And Shri Kshirsagar .. Respondent No.6 (Contemnor) Mr.Ruchir Tolat i/by L.C.Tolat & Co for the petitioner. Mr.Pradeep Jadhav, A.G.P for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.A.P.Steevan for respondent Nos.4 and 5. Ms.T.H.Puranik for respondent No.5. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11th December 2009. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of the contempt petition. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the legality and validity of order of acquisition under section 14 of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971. On 16th February 2006, the writ petition was admitted but this Court declined to grant any interim relief. On 18th March 2006 a Division Bench of this Court was moved by the petitioner. A direction was issued by this Court against the respondents not to take possession until Wednesday 2 22nd March 2006. A Special Leave Petition was preferred by the petitioner for challenging that part of the order of this Court dated 16th February 2006 by which interim relief was declined. On 20th March 2006, the Apex Court issued notice on the said petition and directed that status-quo shall be maintained. On 15th May 2007, further order was passed by the Apex Court directing expeditious disposal of the writ petition. The Apex Court directed that till the writ petition is disposed of, the earlier ad-interim order of status- quo will continue to operate. 2. The grievance made in this contempt petition is that the 4th and 5th respondents who are the slum dwellers have carried out unauthorised extension to their existing structures. The allegation in the petition is that notwithstanding the fact that the said unauthorised acts of the 4th and 5th respondents were brought to the notice of the other respondents, no action has been taken and thus a breach has been committed of the order of status-quo granted by the Apex Court which is operative till the disposal of the main writ petition. 3. After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner I find that this is not a case for initiating an action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The challenge in the writ petition is to an acquisition under section 14 of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971. The interim relief which was prayed for in the petition was for protection of the possession of 3 the petitioner. Even in the Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court the prayer for interim relief was for protecting of the possession of the petitioner. The order of status-quo passed by the Apex Court will have to be read in the light of the prayer for interim relief made in Special Leave Petition. At no stage the petitioner prayed for any interim relief restraining the slum dwellers from carrying on any construction or an interim relief enjoining authorities to prevent any such acts of unauthorised construction. 4. In the circumstances, this is not a case where action can be initiated against the respondents. It will be always open for the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings or to apply for appropriate interim relief in the pending writ petition. Subject to what is stated above, petition is disposed of. (A.S.OKA,J)