1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.477 OF 2010 Shri.Purushottam Naraindas Khemchandani & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.G.Desai for the Petitioners. Mr.Vijay Patil for Respondent No.1. CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. DATE: 25th November, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent. The breach alleged is of the following part of the order dated 16.4.2010;- “2. Considering the grievance made in this petition, we think it appropriate to dispose of this petition on the basis of assurance given by the Corporation, through counsel that the Corporation shall take necessary steps, as may be required, keeping in mind the grievance in the present petition as well as other complaints received, if any with regard to the disputed structure. That will be done expeditiously and in time bound frame.” “3. Initially, the Corporation will give an opportunity to the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 to offer explanation in the context of show cause notice to be issued by the Corporation. The show cause notice will be issued within one month from today and the same will be taken to its logical end not later than four months from today.” 2. The averments made in the petition disclose that the Town Planner of the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation has passed an order holding that the structure complained of has been constructed as per the sanctioned plan. The grievance of the petitioners is that in terms of paragraph No.3 of the order of this Court, the show cause notice was not issued to the Builder. 3. The grievance of the petitioners before this Court in the writ petition was that 2 no steps were being taken in respect of the alleged unauthorised construction. Therefore, a show cause notice was ordered to be issued by this Court. The object of issuing the show cause notice is that the person who has allegedly carried out an illegal construction should be given an opportunity to represent his case. 4. The order of the Town Planner of Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation on page 88 of the petition discloses that the petitioners as well as the builder were called for hearing. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were heard by the Town Planner. Therefore, the order of the Town Planner will have to be treated as substantial compliance with the direction issued by the Division Bench. If the order is erroneous, it is for the petitioners to challenge the same in accordance with law. No case is made out for initiating action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Subject to what is stated above, petition is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)