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 ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 87 OF 2004 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 87 OF 2004 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 87 OF 2004 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.777 OF 1994 WRIT PETITION NO.777 OF 1994 WRIT PETITION NO.777 OF 1994 B.R. KALKE ... PETITIONER B.R. KALKE ... PETITIONER B.R. KALKE ... PETITIONER VS. VS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Ors. RESPONDENTS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Ors. RESPONDENTS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Ors. RESPONDENTS Mr. Cyrus Bharucha along with Laxmi Mankar i/b. Nanu Mr. Cyrus Bharucha along with Laxmi Mankar i/b. Nanu Mr. Cyrus Bharucha along with Laxmi Mankar i/b. Nanu Jormasjee & Co. for the Petitoner. Jormasjee & Co. for the Petitoner. Jormasjee & Co. for the Petitoner. Mr. D.H. Mehta a/w Mrs. Ajithkumar for B.M.C. Mr. D.H. Mehta a/w Mrs. Ajithkumar for B.M.C. Mr. D.H. Mehta a/w Mrs. Ajithkumar for B.M.C. Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2. CORAM: S.K.SHAH,J. CORAM: S.K.SHAH,J. CORAM: S.K.SHAH,J. DATE : 15th July, 2005. DATE : 15th July, 2005. DATE : 15th July, 2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard. Perused the order of which the alleged 1. Heard. Perused the order of which the alleged 1. Heard. Perused the order of which the alleged contempt has been committed. contempt has been committed. contempt has been committed. 2. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 - 2. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 - 2. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 - B.M.C. submits that as per the directions issued by the B.M.C. submits that as per the directions issued by the B.M.C. submits that as per the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, the case of the Petitioner Division Bench of this Court, the case of the Petitioner Division Bench of this Court, the case of the Petitioner was considered and the same has been rejected. There is was considered and the same has been rejected. There is was considered and the same has been rejected. There is letter dated 30.9.2004 issued by the Government of letter dated 30.9.2004 issued by the Government of letter dated 30.9.2004 issued by the Government of Maharashtra - Respondent No.1 that the Government has Maharashtra - Respondent No.1 that the Government has Maharashtra - Respondent No.1 that the Government has also considered the case of the Petitioner and the also considered the case of the Petitioner and the also considered the case of the Petitioner and the Government is of the opinion that the Petitioner is not Government is of the opinion that the Petitioner is not Government is of the opinion that the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit. As such, the order of the entitled to the benefit. As such, the order of the entitled to the benefit. As such, the order of the Division Bench passed on 26.3.2004 that the case of the Division Bench passed on 26.3.2004 that the case of the Division Bench passed on 26.3.2004 that the case of the Petitioner shall be considered has been complied with. Petitioner shall be considered has been complied with. Petitioner shall be considered has been complied with. 3. There is no substance in this Contempt Petition. 3. There is no substance in this Contempt Petition. 3. There is no substance in this Contempt Petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ----- ----- ----- (S.K.SHAH,J.) (S.K.SHAH,J.) (S.K.SHAH,J.)