(-1-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 117 OF 2005 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 117 OF 2005 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 117 OF 2005 Ramprasad Ramsukh Chaurasia ...Petitioner Versus Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and others ...Respondents ..... Ms. Betty D’Souza i/b M.P. Vashi & Associates, counsel for Petitioner Mr. A.J. Bhor, counsel for Respondents 1 and 2. Mr. D.A. Patil, A.G.P.for Respondent No.3. ..... CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. DATED: 26TH APRIL, 2005 DATED: 26TH APRIL, 2005 DATED: 26TH APRIL, 2005 P. C.:- P. C.:- P. C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Court by order dated 28.2.2005 had granted protection of five weeks from that date and therefore, the protection period expired at the end of 3rd April, 2005. The petitioner had sufficient time to initiate appropriate steps. Obviously, the respondents did not disturb the structure till the end of 3rd April, 2005. In such circumstances, there is no case of contempt within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The contempt petition is, therefore, rejected summarily. *****