1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.54 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2671 OF 2005 Jennifer Fernandes .. Petitioner Versus M/s.Ravi Shakun Apartments Pvt.Ltd. and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Sandeep Bhagwat with Ivor Peter Dcruz for petitioner Mr.Atul Damle for respondent No.1 Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Trupti Puranik for respondent Nos. 2 to 6 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 20th April 2009. P.C. . This contempt petition need not be kept pending in the light of the orders passed on 21st October 2008 and 24th November 2008. 2. It is stated that the Municipal Corporation in pursuance of the directions of 2 this Court so also undertaking recorded, has passed an order afresh which is under challenge in a substantive proceeding instituted by the petitioner. 3. Once the opportunity was sought to purge the contempt of the Court, has been granted by a detailed order after hearing both sides, then, I do not see any reason to keep this contempt petition pending. It is accordingly disposed of. However, the Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the petition be kept pending as no compliance of the order passed by this Court is reported. At the same time, he does not dispute pendency of writ petition to challenge the order passed after the directions contained in the order passed on 24th November 2008 on this contempt petition. Once that is undisputed, then, it cannot be stated by any stretch of imagination that the Corporation has not passed an order after opportunity was sought by it to 3 purge the contempt. In these circumstances, I do not see any reason to keep the petition pending even on the point of whether any action should be taken against the authorities. Once the authorities have bonafide pointed out their error and sought correction by stating that they would pass order afresh after hearing all parties, then, I do not see "these" peculiar facts necessitating further action being taken in contempt against them. Contempt Petition disposed of. 4. Needless to state that dismissal of this petition shall not preclude the petitioner from raising appropriate contentions in the pending writ petition before the Division Bench. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)