1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 889 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1467 OF 2005 M/s.Kakade and Company. .. Petitioner Vs Shri Ghanshyam Gajanan Mane. & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri M.S. Lagu for the Applicant/Petitioner. Ms Smita Mane i/by Shri P.B. Shah for Respondent Nos.1 to 12. Ms P.S. Cardoso, AGP for State. -- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J DATE : 12TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C. Heard. This civil application is for grant of further extension of 12 months for complying with the directions contained in the order dated 21st March, 2006. The prayer is opposed by the non-applicant. 2. Writ Petition No.1467 of 2005 was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21st March, 2006 on the basis of Consent terms and undertakings furnished by the parties including the applicant. In terms of clause (3) of the agreed terms, the applicant was to provide accommodation to the 2 original Petitioners and till that time, it was to pay compensation to the respective original Petitioners. The period in question was to be reckoned with effect from 1st March, 2005. The applicant failed to fulfill its obligations in terms of the said order and file an application being C.A. No.1437 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.1467 of 2005 for extension of time. This application along with a number of other applications with the same prayer was allowed by the Court vide order dated 15th June, 2007 wherein time was extended by six weeks. The applicant obviously did nothing . Even after passing of the said order and after a considerable lapse, the Applicant in the year 2008 filed the present application. In the present application, hardly any reason whatsoever has been stated. Neither any reason has been stated nor any step which was taken by the applicant has been elaborated so as to provide a sufficient cause for extension of time to comply with the said directions. This project was to be completed within 12 months from the date when all the shop owners were to vacate their respective premises which the shopkeepers have done. 3. In the circumstances, we see no reason to grant any extension. In fact, earlier extension was granted vide order dated 3 15th June, 2007. Despite passing of the order of extension, the applicants have taken no steps. The present application is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. We see no reason to grant the present application. The application is dismissed without any order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J