1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.92 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.189 OF 2009 Arun Nathuram Gaikwad ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents. ..... Mr. R.A. Bansode for the Petitioner. Mr. D.A. Nalavade, GP for the State – Respondent No.1. Mr. Aniket N. Nikam with Ms Trupti Puranik for Respondents 2 to 4. Mr. R.A. Lokhande for Respondent No.5. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1st October, 2009. P.C. : 1. By an order dated 23rd February, 2006 the Division Bench of this Court while allowing a petition under Article 226 directed the Municipal Corporation to demolish a construction which was held to be unauthorized and illegal. The matter was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court. By a judgment dated 11th October, 2006 in Civil Appeal 4448 of 2006 the Supreme Court issued the following directions : 2 “Taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances and while deciding the matter, we make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on merits of the rival claims. The Authorities are entitled to examine and grant such relief as the appellants may be entitled to under the law. The respondent – Commissioner is directed to decide the matter absolutely on merits after affording opportunity to the first respondent herein within 3 months from the date of this judgment. During this period however, no demolition shall be made. We also make it clear that the appellant shall not put up any further construction or alter the construction already made.” 2. Subsequently another writ petition was filed before the Division Bench by the Petitioner to the contempt proceedings which was disposed of on 3rd March, 2009 in the following terms : “The learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Corporation submits that they will look into the allegations made in the writ petition and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. 2. In view of the aforesaid statement, writ petition does not survive and the same is disposed of. No order as to costs. The respondents shall abide by the statement.” 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that no steps have been taken by the Municipal Corporation to look into the allegations made in the writ petition and to pass appropriate orders expeditiously despite what was 3 stated before the Division Bench. The Court has been informed that after the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 11th October, 2006 the Municipal Commissioner had passed an order of demolition on 21st April, 2007. That order was impugned in a suit instituted before the City Civil Court. The City Civil Court dismissed a Notice of Motion for interim relief holding that the order of the Municipal Commissioner was neither irrational nor arbitrary. The Division Bench of this Court had as already noted earlier passed an order on 3rd March, 2009 recording the statement of the Corporation that they will look to the allegations made in the writ petition and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. A hearing took place before the Executive Engineer, (Building Proposals) Eastern Suburbs on 22nd June, 2009. The order of the Executive Engineer notes that during the course of the hearing, it had transpired that the Urban Development Department had on 18th September, 2008 stayed the order of demolition of the structure, passed by the Municipal Commissioner until further orders. The learned Government Pleader has on instructions and on perusing the file made available to him by the competent officer stated that the order of stay has been passed on an application for regularization 4 filed by the trustees of the trust, the Fifth Respondent to these proceedings. The Learned Government Pleader has stated that a final decision shall be taken on or before 24th November, 2009 after hearing all the concerned parties. Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation states that after the decision of the Urban Development Department is communicated to the Municipal Corporation, the hearing before the Executive Engineer, (Building Proposals) Eastern Suburbs (1) shall be completed and final orders shall be passed within six weeks of the receipt of the decision. In view of the statements which have been made on behalf of the Learned Government Pleader and on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner does not seek any further directions at this stage in the Contempt Petition. In any event recourse to the contempt jurisdiction at this stage is not expedient in the interests of justice. The Contempt Petition is disposed of. Parties shall abide by their statement. *****