cp113.09.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 113 of 2009 In Writ Petition No. 1467 of 2009 ( Ratilal s/o Bhawanji Chavan and others ..vs.. Shreerang Landge and another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the petitioners, Smt. A.R. Taiwade, A.G.P. for the respondent No.1, Dr. Anjan De, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Coram: R. K. Deshpande, J. Date : March 30, 2010 1. This petition complains the willful disobedience of the order dated 4th April, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1467 of 2009, which reproduces below :- “1. Heard MS Nivedita Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the present Writ Petition with liberty to file a representation to Respondent no.2 for redressal of grievances made in the petition, within two weeks and prayed that direction be given to decide the same within a stipulated period. cp113.09.odt 2 2. In the circumstances, Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with direction to Respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioners, if filed within two weeks, on its own merit and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. Issues raised in the petition are kept open.” 2. Shri Bhandarkar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the detailed representation was made to the respondent-Director, Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune on 13-4-2009, wherein the prayer was made to decide the representation and earmarked the lands mentioned in the representation for residential purpose by giving direction to the Municipal Council, Chandrapur to make changes mutatis mutandis for the development under the provisions of Section 37 of the Maharashtra Residential and Planning Act, 1966 in the interest of justice. 3. The aforesaid representation dated 13-4-2009 has been decided by the Director, Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune vide its communication dated 13-5-2009. The petitioner has been informed in response to the representation that the State Government has issued appropriate directions to the Chief Officer, Municipal Counsel, Chandrapur by separate letter dated 4-12-2008 and therefore, the petitioner was asked to approach the cp113.09.odt 3 Municipal Council, Chandrapur. The Director, Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune in paragraph 8 of the affidavit has also been stated that the representation preferred by the petitioner on 13-4-2009 has been answered vide communication dated 13-5-2009 and in view of the communication from the State Government dated 4-12-2008 the order has been complied. 4. Shri Bhandarkar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2008) 14 SCC 115, Anil Kumar Shahi (2) and others ..vs.. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav and others, in which it has been held that the “Direction for consideration of a matter in accordance with law. Held, this means that the matter should be considered to the best of understanding of an authority to whom direction is given. Mere error of judgment with regard to legal position does not constitute contempt for the reason that there is no willful disobedience if best efforts are made to comply with the court order.” 5. In view of this Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is apparent that the Director, Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune has considered the representation of the petitioners best of his understanding and hence an appropriate directions are issued. The order stands fully complied. 6. Mr. Bhandarkar, the learned Advocate appearing cp113.09.odt 4 for the petitioners relies upon Placitum-A of the aforesaid judgment, in which it has been held that the “Court’s jurisdiction in civil contempt arises when there is willful disobedience of court's order and court in such a situation can also pass consequential orders for enforcement of its original order.” It is apparent that the order has been fully complied with by the concerned authority. Hence, there is no question of issuing any consequential direction to comply the order. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the Contempt Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that none of the observations made in this petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner to adopt appropriate remedy. JUDGE adgokar