{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.353 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4545 OF 2008 Mrs.Mathurabai Pandharinath Shinde Petitioner Versus Chief Officer - Mr.Mukund Murlidhar Gujar, Kopargaon Municipal Council, Kopargaon, Dist.Ahmednagar and another Respondents Mr.S.D.Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.R.Bhavar, advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.V.B.Ghadge, A.G.P. For for respondent no.2. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 25 th March, 2011 PER COURT: 1 The petitioner is alleging willful disobedience of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court on 01.09.2009 in Writ Petition No.4545/2008. 2 The petition was presented by the petitioner seeking directions to the Respondents to pay the agreed amount of Rs. 16,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% from 21 st {2} November, 2005. It was informed to the Court, at the time of hearing of the writ petition, that an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- has already been paid by the Municipal Council to the petitioner. So far as balance amount of Rs.9,50,000/- is concerned, the statement of the Chief Officer, who was present in the Court, was recorded to the effect that, the amount would be paid within a period of six months. So far as the question of amount of interest is concerned, liberty was kept open to the petitioner to make representation to Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was directed to consider the application for grant of interest taking into consideration the fact that possession of the land of petitioner was taken way back in the year 2005 and first instalment was paid to him in the month of February 2009. 3 So far as disbursement of amount of Rs.9,50,000/- to the petitioner is concerned, as undertaken by the Chief Officer to pay the same within a period of six months, was not complied with by the Chief Officer and as such, it is alleged that the Chief Officer has committed breach of the undertaking given by him. It is also alleged that the representation in respect of payment of interest has also not been considered by the Municipal Council. 4 An affidavit-in-reply has been presented on behalf of the Municipal Council and it is stated therein that on 10.02.2010, the Municipal Council issued a letter to the petitioner requesting {3} her to remain present on 11.02.2010 at 10.30 a.m. in the office of Municipal Council, Kopargaon and to accept the cheque for remaining amount. The letter was sent by hand delivery to the petitioner. It is further stated that daughter of the petitioner, who was present, refused to accept the cheque. As such, the letter was sent through R.P.A.D. on the same day i.e. on 10.02.2010, however, the letter was also returned with an endorsement, “refused to accept”. It is the contention of the Municipal Council that on 23.02.2010, a letter was transmitted to the petitioner to remain present in the Municipal Council and to collect the cheque of balance of amount. However, petitioner did not remain present and did not accept the cheque for balance amount. Thus the attempts made by the Municipal Council to pay the amount to the petitioner failed on account of her reluctance to accept the same. 5 It is further stated that the Municipal Council had filed Civil Application No.2694 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.4545/2010 with a request to allow the Municipal Council to deposit amount of Rs.9,50,000/-. The Civil Application presented in the writ petition was not considered on merit and same was disposed of on account of disposal of main writ petition. The Municipal Council thereafter appeared in the Contempt Petition and deposited the amount in this proceedings. The amount, which was deposited by the Municipal Council was also admittedly withdrawn by the contempt petitioner. Thus, the direction in respect of payment of amount of {4} Rs.9,50,000/- to the petitioner, is complied with. 6 As far as the direction in respect of decision on representation submitted by petitioner in respect of payment of interest is concerned, learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Council has stated that the amount has been determined and the Municipal Council has decided to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of delayed payment of principal amount. It is stated that the amount is calculated @ 4% p.a.. The Counsel appearing for Municipal Council has expressed willingness to pay the amount by cheque to the petitioner, which was actually presented before the Court, however Counsel appearing for the petitioner, expressed his inability to accept amount on behalf of his client, for the reason that, according to the Counsel for petitioner, his client does not agree with determination of amount of interest at 4% p.a. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the decision of Municipal Council to pay interest at 4% p.a. is not in keeping with the spirit of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. The computation of interest is not proper and his client is entitled to receive much more amount than what is being offered by the Municipal Council. On perusal of the order and more specifically para 5, it is evident that this Court has not issued any direction prescribing the rate of interest payable on the principal sum on account of delayed payment. {5} 7 So far as determination of claim raised by the petitioner in his representation, in respect of payment of interest, is concerned, even if the decision rendered therein by the Municipal Council is not within the expectations of the petitioner, she may have to avail of other remedies for ventilating her grievance, in accordance with provisions of law. However, as the claim raised by the petitioner in respect of payment of interest has been decided by the Municipal Council and an offer was made to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-(which, according to the Counsel for the petitioner, is not acceptable to the petitioner), in the circumstances, I am of the considered view that there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4545 of 2008, decided on 01.09.2009. 8 For the reasons stated above, this Contempt Petition does not deserve any consideration and same stands rejected. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/cp35310