: 1 : conp-88-09=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 88 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2625 OF 2009 Goldie Purshottam Sud .. Petitioner v/s. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay & Anr. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani i/b Priyadarshini Redkar for the petitioner Mr. R.S. Apte with Ms. T.H. Puranik for BMC. ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 25th FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. : 1. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 11th February, 2011 the Corporation has filed affidavit of the concerned advocate who had drafted affidavit dated 16th April, 2010 affirmed by Govind P. Rathod. Mr. Rathod has also filed an affidavit. The Corporation has not filed detailed affidavit as to what action was taken against three staff members namely Smt. S.M. Modle, Mr. R.R. Rane and Smt. Vidya Korgaonkar. Across the bar, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Apte produced document to show that these three persons have been warned. : 2 : conp-88-09=.sxw Non-filing of affidavit in regard to this action is a breach of the order passed by this Court. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Apte had no other alternative but to tender an apology for not filing this affidavit. 2. I have perused the affidavit of Mr. Rathod dated 24th February, 2011 and the affidavit of the concerned advocate dated 24th February, 2011. These affidavits really do not help the Court in ascertaining the point in dispute. At one stage, the Corporation has come out with the case that the intimation was prepared on 24th November, 2008 and served upon the concerned officer. Mr. Rathod has taken a shelter of the said intimation to claim that no contempt is committed. On the second occasion vide affidavit dated 24th February, 2011 of Mr. Rathod, a new stand is sought to be put up that intimation was prepared on 23rd October, 2010. It is difficult to understand why a copy of the intimation dated 24th October, 2010 is not produced. 3. Looking to the various affidavits which have filed on record, this Court records its displeasure for not filing appropriate affidavits to place before the Court facts which would have helped the Court to ascertain real developments which took place in the office of the Corporation. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation is a body which is required to control the activities of construction in Mumbai and as such have to be careful : 3 : conp-88-09=.sxw and vigilant when orders passed by the Court. It is the prime duty of the entire staff of legal department to communicate order passed by Court to the concerned Officer who is supposed to comply the said order. With the development of technology and availability of telephone, fax machines and other equipments, it is not difficult for the staff of the Corporation to communicate to the concerned officer the order at least orally at the first instance and then by an official letter so that the order of the Court is acted upon. 4. In the present case, it appears that the concerned officers of the Corporation did not move in a speedy manner to communicate the order passed by the Court to the concerned Officer. I am sure if the order would have been intimated to the concerned officer promptly, the embarrassment faced by the Corporation could have been avoided. 5. After having considered the submissions, I am inclined to observe that this is a case where benefit of doubt should go to the concerned officer who was supposed to comply with order dated 24th October, 2008. 6. It is required to be noted that learned Senior Counsel Mr. Apte appearing on behalf of the Corporation and all concerned has tendered : 4 : conp-88-09=.sxw an unconditional apology on behalf of the Corporation. I am inclined to accept that apology and close this contempt petition. It is also required to be noted that order dated 24th October, 2008 passed by Mr. Rathod was subsequently set aside by this Court and the Corporation was directed to give a fresh hearing and pass appropriate orders. Hence, as of today, there is no immediate loss caused to the petitioners. 7. In my view, nothing more is required to be said about this contempt petition. In the normal course, the Court would have been justified in imposing costs upon the Corporation. Looking to the apology tendered by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Apte, I feel that in this case, there is no need to impose costs. Hence, following order is passed to dispose of the contempt petition. ORDER (i) The unconditional apology tendered on behalf of Corporation is accepted. (ii) Petition is disposed off in the above terms with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)