:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CONTEMPT PETITION NO.314 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.314 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.314 OF 2007 Bhimsha Laxman Alukunte ...Petitioner. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. WITH WITH WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.315 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.315 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.315 OF 2007 Shankar Damodar Lokhande ..Petitioner. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH WITH WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.316 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.316 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.316 OF 2007 Anil Yeshwant Pawar ..Petitioner. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH WITH WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.317 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.317 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.317 OF 2007 Nitin Nivrutti Pawar ..Petitioner. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Shri S.G.Surana, adv. for the petitioners. Shri B.H.Mehta, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri Uday Bobade Sr.Adv. i/by Shri Mukesh Subramanian, advs. for the Respondent Nos.4 and 11. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 20th June, 2008. DATE: 20th June, 2008. DATE: 20th June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners in each of these four petitions was to be provided transit accommodation pending the :2: construction of regular buildings under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The premises, which were in occupation of petitioners in Contempt Petition Nos.315 of 2007, 316 of 2007 and 317 of 2007 have already been demolished, however, the petitioner in Contempt Petition No.314 of 2007 has not vacated the premises. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are provided alternate accommodation in the buildings, which are unauthorisedly constructed and which are required to be demolished as per the notice under Section 53(1) issued under the M.R.T.P. Act by the Executive Engineer, Slum Rehabilitation Authorities on 10th October, 2006 and thus, the order passed by the administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division on 11-7-2007 has been violated. The learned counsel for the respondent no.4, who is builder, pointed out that the notice dated 10th October, 2006 has been already withdrawn by the Slum Rehabilitation Authorities by the letter dated 22nd December, 2006 and the construction of the said buildings has already been regularised. In view of this position, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioners. 3. Mr.Surana the learned counsel for the petitioners made further contention that the occupation certificate about these two buildings has not yet been granted and, therefore, the petitioners are unable to occupy the accommodation in the said buildings. :3: Mr.Bobade the learned counsel for the respondent no.4, however, makes a statement that unless the old buildings are demolished and the debris are removed, the Municipal Corporation would not grant occupation certificate for the new buildings in which the transit accommodation is being given. He contends that the petitioners are creating obstacles and the petitioner in Contempt Petition No.314 of 2007 has not yet vacated the premises and the same could not be demolished. It shows that the petitioners themselves are responsible for the delay in getting occupation certificate. 4. In view of the above circumstances, I find no substance in the contempt petitions. Therefore, the Contempt Petitions stand dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)