( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 103 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6772 OF 2007 Ashok Kacharulal Abad and ors. .. Petitioners Versus Shri Ranjitsinh Deol and anr. .. Respondents Shri A.B. Kale, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for the respondents. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 02.09.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Shri A.B. Kale, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for the respondents. This Court passed following order on 11.12.2007 in Writ Petition No. 6772 of 2007:- “Petitioners have approached this Court seeking directions to respondent nos. 2 & 3 for ( 2 ) conversion of user u/s 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Petitioners are already having permission for industrial use of premises. They desire conversion of use to commercial purpose. They have applied and the application is pending before respondent nos.2 and 3. We direct respondent nos. 2 & 3 to consider the application of petitioners on its own merits at an early date and in any case within a period of three months from today.” 2. Along with reply affidavit, letter dated 31.03.2008 is enclosed, whereby the present contempt petitioners are informed by respondent No.1 that the applications dated 17.07.2007, 25.04.2007 and 01.08.2007 were filed as per reply dated 30.09.2007. The prayer was for conversion of land from industrial use to commercial use. After the decision, remarks of the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council and Town Planner were called for. As per the City Development Plan the land was included in industrial and it was not possible to include it in residential area, because of Government’s sanction to that effect was not received and in the circumstances it was not possible to change user from industrial to commercial. ( 3 ) 3. The learned advocate for the petitioners stated that the decision was communicated on 31.03.2008 and not before 11.03.2008, which was end of period of three months. In my opinion, considering complexity of the issue and in view of the reasons given in paras 3,5 and 8 of the reply affidavit, the delay is properly explained and the apology to that extent given in para 2 can be accepted. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioners has produced one circular dated 03.07.2007, which is taken on record and marked “X”, thereby the Government has directed that since the land is under industrial area, it cannot be used for any other purposes and therefore it was necessary to change it into residential zone and for that purpose it was necessary for Jalana Municipal Council to submit the proposal. So, it is clear from this circular/communication that the grant of permission from industrial into commercial purpose is required action on the part of the Municipal Council. In the circumstances of the case this is not a case where further action is required under the Contempt of Courts Act. ( 4 ) 5. After the above order is dictated, the learned advocate for the petitioners Shri Kale submits that there is also order passed by the Government, but that is not on record. Since, said order is not placed on record and the submission is made after the order is dictated, this Contempt Petition is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/SEP09/cp103.08