1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.406/2008 Plantinum Square Trust ... Petitioner Vs. Mr.D.L.N.Murthy & Ors. Respondents Vikas Singh ,Sr.advocate with Ms.Amrita Narayn i/b Navdeep Vora and Associates for the petitioner Mr.G.S.Hegade i/b M/s G.S.Hegade & Asso.for Res.no.1 Mr.P.I.Khemani,AGP for Res.5 Coram : S.J.Vazifdar,J. Date : 24th November,2008 P.C. 1] The contempt is alleged of an order dated 17th May, 2006. 2] It appears that by a letter dated 23.6.2004 CIDCO accepted the petitioner's request of allotment of a plot of land admeasuring 50,350 sq. mtrs. on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It is stated that a map was also furnished to the petitioner. The said map is not on record. The petitioner was aggrieved by a letter dated 28.4. 2006 terminating the same. The petitioner,therefore,filed Writ Petition No. 3423/06 wherein the said order dated 17.5.2006 was passed . Paragraph -2 of the order reads 2 thus:- '' The perusal of the communication dated 28th April,2006 does not show that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before taking decision in respect of repudiating of the agreement of lease .In view of this,the effect and operation of the communication dated 28th April,2006 is stayed until further orders.'' 3] The respondents are the officers of CIDCO. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that despite the above order CIDCO invited tenders for the disposal of Kharghar Hill Plateau which also includes the property allotted to the petitioner.A grievance in that regard was raised by the petitioner by a letter dated 3.10.2008. However, CIDCO by its reply dated 16.10.2008 clarified that it has not invited the tenders but has only invited ' ' exp ression of interest '' from eligible bidders for the development of said plateau . It is important to note that it is clarified and the petitioner was assured that in the pre-bid meeting the interested parties would be apprised of the status of the subject land. 4] Although the letter may not be clear in all respects I do not think that there was any intention to disobey the order dated 17.5.2006 . It is obvious that the petitioner's 3 rights in the said letter dated 23.6.2004 must be protected as long the order dated 17.5.2006 is in force.The respondents shall ,therefore, ensure that the attention of the intending bidders must be invited to Writ Petition no.3423/ 06. Needless to say as long the said order dated 17.5.2006 is in force the land to the extent of 50,350 sq. mtrs. from the area proposed to be developed shall be kept available for the petitioner till the said order is in force. 5] It is contended that this area of 50,350 has in fact been identified by CIDCO at the time of allotment . There is nothing on record at present which indicates the same. Needless to say that if in fact it has been done the same plot will be retained. Mr.Hegade makes a statement that there has been no such identification. 6] Any further dispute regarding the identification of the plot cannot be gone into at present in this contempt petition. The petitioner is at liberty to adopt appropriate proceeding in that regard. 7] The Contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. 4