1 cp-121.09 Ash FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 121 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders. Shri N.V. Vechalekar i/by M/s. N.V. Vechalekar & Co. for the Petitioners. Shri A.I. Patel, AGP for Respondent No.1. Shri D.R. More for Respondent No.2. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 9TH DECEMBER, 2010 P.C.: . Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, learned AGP for Respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. 2. The breach alleged is of the following part of the order dated 27th February, 2008, which reads thus:- “2. The learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation such that after it was discovered that the alignment would involve demand of houses, they modified the alignment and submitted the Development Plan along with the modified plan to the Government which is awaiting sanction. As such, we do not find that the petitioners have any grievance at 2 cp-121.09 present. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 3. It is clarified, with respect to Gat No.170, that the respondents shall not use the land for the purpose of road-widening till the Modified Plan is sanctioned by the Government, as we are told that the Modified Plan is under consideration of the Government. The State shall consider the request for modification of the plan within a period of three months and pass appropriate orders.” 3. This order does not put restraint on the Municipal Corporation from carrying out the work of road widening. The order directs that the Corporation shall not use the land forming part of Gat No.170 for the purposes of road widening till the modified plan was sanctioned by the State Government. The modified plan has been admittedly sanctioned by the State Government. The grievance of the Petitioners in this Petition appears to be that the Municipal Corporation is acting contrary to the modified plan. Considering the nature of the order dated 27th February, 2008, no action can be initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on the ground that allegedly a deviation has been made from the sanctioned modified plan. The allegations made in the Civil Application No. 87 of 2009 are also as regards the alleged deviation made from the modified plan. Suffice it to say that this is not a case where the 3 cp-121.09 proceedings can be initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Contempt Petition is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J)