1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.271 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.329 OF 2004 National Defence Employees Union Mumbai 400 034 ...Petitioner vs. The Prothonotary & Senior Master High Court, Bombay ...Respondent Mr.Lancelot Lewis i/b Mr.Godfrey D Silva for the petitioner Mr.R.Chavan a/w Mr.G.Hariharan i/b Mr.T.C.Kaushik for 2 nd respondent CORAM :B.H.MARLAPALLE & A.S.OKA,JJ. DATE : AUGUST 31, 2009 P.C. 1 We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent in the writ petition in support of the notice of motion. We have also heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition. The prayer in this notice of motion is for extending the time for compliance of the order dated 21 st November 2006 passed by this court in notice of motion no.285 of 2006. 2 By order dated 15 th April 2004, this court disposed of the main writ petition. This court noted that the Deputy Director of Industrial Safety and Health, Mumbai in his report has noted that the second respondent had committed certain breaches. The deficiencies were noted in paragraphs 5,7,8 and 9 of the report. While 2 disposing of the writ petition, this court directed the 2 nd respondent in the writ petition to remove the deficiencies pointed out by the Deputy Director in paragraphs 7,8 and 9 of his report within a period of eight weeks. The second respondent was directed to remove the deficiencies incorporated in paragraph 5 of the report within four months. 3 By a Judgment and order dated 21 st November 2006 passed by this court in notice of motion no.285 of 2006, certain directions were issued. The respondents were directed to complete the construction of the additional floor within a period of 15 months from the date of the said order. 4 In the present notice of motion, this court had appointed Shri Yatish Kini of M/s.Shrinivas M. Kini & Company as a Court Commissioner to visit the site and to submit a report. Accordingly, a report dated 20 th July 2009 was submitted recording details of the works which remains to be carried out. Thereafter, under the orders of this court, the said Court Commissioner was directed to again visit the site and to submit a report. The report dated 10 th August 2009 has been submitted by the Court Commissioner on visiting the site on 6 th August 2009. We have perused the report. The report records that the work of the first floor as well as terrace floor has been completed and only work which remained to be 3 carried out is the work of finishing and cleaning the stair case. The report records that the contractor who was present at the site promised to complete the work by 9 th August 2009. 5 Thus, it appears to us that the work contemplated by order of this court dated 25 th April 2004 passed in the writ petition has been carried out. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2 nd respondents have not obtained the requisite permissions from the authorities for construction and/or occupation of the structure. The submission of the learned counsel for the second respondent is that there is an exemption granted in favour of the second respondent. However, it is not necessary for this court to go into these aspects as a limited prayer in the notice of motion is for extension of time to comply with the earlier order dated 21 st November 2006. Now, the order dated 21 st November 2006 has been substantially complied with. 6 Hence, we dispose off the notice of motion by passing the following order : i) Notice of motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). ii)Time to comply with the earlier order is extended till 9 th August 2009. As noted in this order, 4 earlier orders have been subsequently complied with. iii)The issues raised by the petitioner will have to be dealt with in the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (A.S.OKA,J.)