{1} cp22804.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.228 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1192 OF 2002 Jai Maharashtra Tapri Sanghatana, Aurangabad, through its President Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.Y.M.Khan, advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.D.Kaldate, A.G.P. for respondent no.1. Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh, advocate for respondents no.2 & 3. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 07 th April, 2011 PER COURT: 1 While disposing of Writ Petition No.1192 of 2002 on 16th June, 2003, this Court has directed Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad to follow the procedure of giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to booth / stall holders, whose names are listed in the petition. It was also directed that the Corporation is expected to follow the procedure in respect of all the similarly placed stall / booth holders. The Commissioner or his authorised officer was directed to hear the representations, if any and pass appropriate orders of eviction by following the procedure as laid down under the Act, within three months. {2} cp22804.odt 2 Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents No.2 and 3, has presented an affidavit-in-reply and in paragraph no.4 of the reply, it is stated as below: That, in pursuant to the directions issued by this Hon’ble High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition No.1192/2002 on 16/06/2003, the said Corporation though not within (3) months as directed, but did follow the procedure of giving notice, and an opportunity of hearing was given to the booth/stall holders whose names were listed in the petition. The said procedure was followed for all the similarly placed booth/stall holders and the representations in this regard were heard by the Commissioner/Authorized Officer of the said Corporation, and thereafter, the appropriate orders of evictions came to be passed on 16/06/2006. Before passing of the aforesaid order, the office of the said Corporation through the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) was required to give an explanation vide letter dated 15.06.2005 to the Advocate for Petitioner Organization in pursuant to her letter dated 25/01/2005, and which goes to show that all the illegal Taparies were very much there at that time and seem to be evicted subsequently vide abovesaid order dated 16/06/2006. The true and correct copies of the above referred explanation vide letter dated 15.06.2005 given by the office of the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) of the said Corporation to the Advocate for Petitioner Organization and the Order of eviction dated 16/06/2006 passed by the said Corporation, are annexed herewith. {3} cp22804.odt 3 In view of the explanation tendered by the Corporation, it appears that the directions issued by this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, have been substantially complied with. There is no intentional violation or breach of the orders passed by this Court. 4 The Contempt Petition does not call for any interference and stands rejected. R.M.BORDE JUDGE ******* adb/cp22804