1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 33/2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4648/2005 Lal Sai Sindhi Vyapari Sangh and 26 others ..versus.. Shri V.K.Agrawal and 5 others =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== Shri Anand Parchure, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.D.Sonak, AGP for Respondents. C ORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 9th JUNE, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned AGP for respondent State. 2) Writ Petition No. 3840/2001 was filed by Mayo Hospital Compound General Merchant Association through its President and on 23rd January, 2002, the Division Bench directed that the State Government will rehabilitate all the shop keepers whose shops were located earlier in the Mayo Hospital Compound. 3) Another Writ Petition being W.P.NO.4648/2005 was moved by the petitioners Lal Sai Sindhi Vyapari Sangh and others. The Division Bench observed as under; 2 “In view of the above referred observations, it is evident that the Writ Petition No. 3840/2001 is disposed of in view of the categorical statement made by the State Government about rehabilitation of the shop keepers. However, it appears that till this date no steps are taken by the State Government in this regard and therefore, we expect the State Government and its concerned Department to take appropriate steps in this regard without any further delay as per the assurance given before this Court in Writ Petition No. 3840/2001 for rehabilitating the shop keepers” 4) The petitioner feels that this order in Writ Petition No. 4648/2005 being not complied with, there is contempt. 5) The order in Writ Petition No. 4648/2005, reading in any sense, would not tantamount that this Court directed the authorities to take appropriate steps as regards rehabilitation of the present petitioners. In Writ Petition No. 4648/2005, it was observed, “we expect the State Government and its concerned Department to take appropriate steps in this regard without any further delay as per the assurance given before this Court in Writ Petition No. 3840/2001 for rehabilitating the shop keepers” This demonstrate that Writ Petition No. 4648/2005 was disposed of expecting to take the steps in tune to the assurance given before the Court in Writ Petition No. 3840/2001. 3 6) The observations made in Writ Petition No. 3840/2001 naturally will not be applicable to be complied with by the same parameters and force. Consequently, I found that there is no contempt or disobedience on the part of the authority in not acting in pursuance to the order in Writ Petition No. 4648/2005. 7) With all said and done, the fact remains that the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4648/2005 have equally faced brunt of loss of their business due to the development project initiated by the Government for road widening. It is for the present petitioners to approach the Government to get rehabilitation in terms of the direction in earlier Writ Petition No. 3840/2001, as per prevalent policy of Government. 8) With the above observations, I find, there is no merit in the present contempt petition. It is disposed of. The respondents discharged. No costs. (K.U.Chandiwal) JUDGE. Rvjalit