: 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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.55 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.55 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.55 OF 2007 IN IN IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.388 OF 2006 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.388 OF 2006 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.388 OF 2006 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.194 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.194 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.194 OF 2005 Dr.K.Shivraj Mani .. Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Petitioner is present in person. Mr.Milind More, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 3rd September, 2007. DATE : 3rd September, 2007. DATE : 3rd September, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The Contempt Petition complains that the order passed by this Court, directing the respondents to furnish certain information to the petitioner has been violated. The attention of this Court is invited to the orders dated 12th February, 2007 and 9th April, 2007. : 2 : 2. In response to this Contempt Petition, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in which it has been stated that the information sought by the petitioner has already been provided vide letter dated 19th May, 2007. This is a letter / communication under the Right to Information Act. 3. The petitioner is not satisfied with this and has filed an additional affidavit, in which the pleas that are raised are not that the information is not provided but the information is not relevant to the issue raised in the main matter. 4. These contentions are not capable of being resolved in contempt jurisdiction. Although, the order has been passed in February but belatedly it has been complied with and the communication is annexed to the respondents’ affidavit. The petitioner does not deny having received the same. In such circumstances, the contempt petition is not the remedy for the petitioner. Petition dismissed. However, it is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy if he is not satisfied with the information disclosed to him by the respondents. : 3 : (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.) (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.) (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)