1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.435 OF 2008 Mubarak Husenmiya Alimiya .....Petitioner V/s. City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Rajaram P. Lote, for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Hegde i/by Hegde & Associates, for respondents. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 04, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. I have gone through the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 11-03-2008. In fact, the Division Bench has dismissed bunch of petitions by holding that the petitions are not required to be entertained. It is also found that petitions suffer from the delay and laches. The Division Bench has also made certain observations in Para No. 2, but that itself is no ground for invoking the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. If the petitioner has any other grievance against CIDCO in any manner, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, but surely it cannot be said that the respondent – CIDCO has committed any contempt. At this stage, the learned counsel for 2 the petitioner states that he would like to approach CIDCO by way of appropriate representation. It will be open to the petitioner to approach CIDCO by way of appropriate representation and CIDCO is at liberty to decide the said representation in accordance with law. 2. Subject to what has been stated above, contempt petition is disposed of. (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)