1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 62 OF 2009 Manohar Shamrao Gande ... Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Sagar Joshi for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Dewal for respondent Nos.2(a) and 2(b). CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 11TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. The contempt petition has been preferred contending that the order dated 29.11.2007 has been breached by the respondents. It is contended that the respondents have not complied with the undertaking given to this Court when the aforesaid order was passed. It appears that the petitioner had moved a criminal contempt petition with respect to the same order. That criminal contempt petition was dismissed by an order dated 24.6.2008 by the Division Bench of this Court. This matter was carried in appeal to the Supreme 2 Court. The Supreme Court has also dismissed the S.L.P. 2. In my opinion, there is no contempt committed by the respondents. Original respondent No.2 who is respondent No.2 herein also, had undertaken to provide 200 sq.ft. carpet area on the ground floor (residential) of Shri Vrund Co-operative Housing Society to the petitioner which is recorded in the order dated 29.11.2007. However, the Court also recorded a statement made on behalf of the respondent No.2 that the Society had objected to this structure because it wanted the whole of the ground floor to be reserved for parking. Despite this statement being made with respect to the Society’s objection, the petitioner chose to withdraw his appeal. 3. Undoubtedly, respondent No.2 has requested the Society to permit it to construct the structure of 200 sq.ft. for the benefit of the petitioner and the Society has refused to accede. 4. In my opinion, there is no willful and deliberate disobedience of any order of this Court by the respondents herein. 5. Contempt petition rejected. ..... 3 4