1 22cp149-09 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 149 OF 2009 Sangeetrao Barku & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. Sameer Unhale & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni with Mr. A. M. Kulkarni for the petitioners. Mr. S. M. Kamble for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP for respondent No.3. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : DECEMBER 9, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The breach alleged is of the statement recorded by the second and third respondents in the order dated 11th August, 2008 passed by this Court. The order dated 11th August, 2008 reads thus: “P.C.: Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have stated thus in their affidavit- 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances I say that the alternate site in view of the property acquired by respondent 2 22cp149-09 Nos.2 and 3 could be handed over to the petitioners as soon as the same is handed over to the Respondent No.2 by the PWD of Respondent No.1. Now, the Petitioners demand for two other sites shall be considered. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents Nos.2 and3 states that what is stated in paragraph 5 quoted above would be done within a period of 12 weeks from today. Statement is accepted. In view of this statement made in the affidavit and in view of the statement made at the bar, on a motion made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner petition is allowed to be withdrawn.” 2. It is not in dispute that the sites suggested by the petitioners were considered by the second and third respondents. For reasons set out, the sites could not be allotted. Perused the affidavit of the town planner of the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and especially the averments made therein in paragraph No.5 onwards. I also perused the additional affidavit dated 8th July, 2009. The Deputy Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation has filed further affidavit dated 22nd March, 2011. Perused the paragraph No.3 of 3 22cp149-09 the said affidavit. The affidavit reiterates that the plots suggested by the petitioners were considered by the Municipal Corporation. The conjoint reading of the affidavits on record shows that there is a substantial compliance made with the statement recorded in the order dated 11th August, 2008. In any case, as of today no case of willful breach or disobedience of the statement recorded by this Court in order dated 11th August, 2008 is made out. If the petitioners are not satisfied with the actions of the Municipal Corporation, it is for them to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law. Subject to what is observed above, as of today, no action can be initiated under the Contempts of Courts Act, 1971. Petition is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)