Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 25 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 257 OF 2003 Garodia Nagar Welfare Federation of Housing Societies & anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Harbanslal Talwar Charitable Trust & ors. ...Respondents Mr. Shiraz Rustomjee with Mr.Kapil More i/b.Prashan Badole forthe petitioner. Mr. Bipin Joshi for respondentno.1 to 7 Ms. Pranita Mhatre i/b.Shaunka Satpute& Co. for respondent nos.14 and 18. Ms.Shobha Ajithakumar for BMC -resp.nos. 8 to 12. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 15th October, 2008 : 15th October, 2008 : 15th October, 2008 P.C. . The principal grievance in this petition is that, inspite of statement made before the Division Bench of this Court by Counsel for respondent no.7, as recorded in order dated August 18, 2003 in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 257 of 2003, that no construction will be made on Plot No. B, it is noticed that some construction activity has been undertaken, which came to the knowledge of the petitioner in June 2007, On getting that information, present petition has been filed in December, 2007. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 who have appeared before 2 this Court on their own and have also filed affidavit, orally submitted through Counsel that infact the said respondent nos. 1 to 7 have no concern whatsoever with Plot No. B. It is stated on their behalf by Counsel that the said respondents have no right, title and interest in Plot No. B and that Plot No. B is not in their possession at all. Besides, it is stated that construction which is standing on Plot No. B is not the product of act of commission or omission of respondent nos. 1 to 7 in any manner. In view of the statement made by respondent nos. 1 to 7 that they have no concern with Plot No.B and they have no objection if petitioners were to pursue remedy in relation to Plot No. B before Court of competent jurisdiction, the question of precipitating this contempt action does not arise. Accordingly, the petition will have to be disposed of on the basis of statement made by the Counsel for the respondents 1 to 7 against whom the present contempt action is proposed. It is relevant to place on record that grievance regarding construction on Plot No. B has been adverted to by the Division Bench of our High Court in decision dated 13th September, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 1932/2003. In para-5 of the said decision, the Division Bench have referred to the report submitted by the Dy. Municipal Commissioner which records that R.G. Plot B, some portion thereof was occupied by unauthorised temporary sheds constructed by 3 M/s. Vaishali Decorators for storing mandap decoration material. The owner of the lay out (the petitioner in that petition) was instructed to remove the unauthorised sheds and develop the recreation grounds by removing all the fencing. 2. Suffice it to observe that in so far as respondent nos. 1 to 7 are concerned, as they have no concern with Plot No. B, no further action is warranted in the present proceedings. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. It will be open to the petitioner to pursue with the Corporation for taking appropriate action in respect of Plot No. B, if so advised. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]