1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 136/2008 (Praveen Prabhatilal Agrawal & another VERSUS I.K. Lohmam & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.S. Chandurkar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Motghare, counsel for the respondent no.1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 4, 2009. By the instant petition, the petitioner had sought the action against the respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for non- compliance of the statement/undertaking given by the counsel for the respondents to the High Court in Writ Petition No.1674/2007, which was decided by the order dated 11.02.2008. It appears from a perusal of the order dated 11.02.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1674/2007 that a statement was made by the counsel for the respondent no.2 to that petition, i.e., the Cantonment 2 Board, Kamptee, that it was the duty of the competent authority to initiate proceedings against one and all, who were responsible for carrying out construction within the Cantonment Board Area against the provisions of the Cantonment Act and appropriate steps would be taken against those persons. In view of the said statement made on behalf of the Cantonment Board, the High Court did not show any indulgence in the matter and dismissed the petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents had not complied with the undertaking/ statement, which was made before the Court on 11.02.2008, which resulted in disposal of the Writ Petition No.1674/2007. After the notice was issued to the respondents, the respondent no.1 filed the affidavit- in-reply and it is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the respondent no.4 to the petition, Dr. Rajendra Agrawal, had conveyed to the respondent no.1 by a 3 letter dated 14.02.2009 that he would remove the alleged unauthorised construction under protest. It was then revealed to the Board that the alleged unauthorised construction was removed by Dr.Rajendra Agrawal and that the said fact was reported to the respondent no.1. The respondent to this petition had personally visited the spot to inspect the same and he has found that the unauthorised construction has been removed and the notice issued to the respondent no.4 Dr. Rajendra Agrawal under the provisions of Sub Section 1 of Section 248 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 has been complied with. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the affidavit-in-reply, it is clear that the respondents had not committed contempt of this Court by willfully non-complying the statement/undertaking given before this Court on 11.02.2008 in Writ Petition No.1674/2007. It 4 appears that the respondents had initiated action against the respondent no.4 to the writ petition and had also taken appropriate steps to remove the alleged illegal construction. It is, therefore, necessary to drop the contempt proceedings against the respondents. The contempt proceedings are hereby dropped. The notice dated 19.08.2008 stands discharged. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE