: 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.136 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.136 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.136 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.2003 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2003 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2003 OF 2007 M/s.S.B.Developers .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents And Mr.Chandrashekhar Dongarvar & Anr. .. Contemnors. Mr.C.D’Souza with Mr.H.S.Anand i/b.Ms.Sarita Donde for petitioner. Mr.P.G.Lad, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Mr.S.G.Surana for respondent No.2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 31st October, 2007. DATE : 31st October, 2007. DATE : 31st October, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This is not a case where the order passed by this Court directing disposal of the proceedings pursuant to show cause notice has been violated or disobeyed wilfully by the authority, who was directed to deal with the show : 2 : cause notice. On the other hand, Mr.D’Souza points out some communication of the Society purporting to interpret the order passed by this Court. There is no order directed against the Society. The order and direction is directed towards the authority, namely, Slum Rehabilitation Authority - respondent No.3. That authority is not alleged to have breached the order and direction of this Court. If the petitioner has further remedies, it can take recourse to it in law. Contempt petition is certainly not the remedy of the petitioner, which is misconceived and dismissed as such. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.) (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.) (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)