1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.280 OF 2007 Abdul Kadar Adam Mulla & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Hitesh Vyas for petitionhers Mr.A.I.Patel, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr.A.P.Kulkarni for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 21st April 2010. P.C.: 1] This contempt petition alleges that contrary to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the respondents and particularly Jawhar Municipal Council has failed to provide graveyard within two years from 30th June 2005. The matter was placed yesterday on board when Jawhar Municipal Council was directed to keep the Chief Officer present. Accordingly, Mr.Sameer Madhav Kurtakoti, Sub-Divisional Officer, Jawhar Municipal Council who is in-charge Chief Officer is 2 present with records. Mr.Kulkarni appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on instructions from the in-charge chief officer states that the Jawhar Municipal Council has made available an area of 5000 sq.mtrs for construction of graveyard. The construction is in advanced stage, boundary walls have been erected and as far as civil construction is concerned, tenders have been floated and contract has been awarded. The Council is further aware that although an area admeasuring 8000 sq.mtr was designated for the purpose of graveyard presently 5000 sq.mtrs have been made available. The construction has commenced on this portion and as far as balance area is concerned, steps are being taken including at Government level to secure allotment of land/ area admeasuring about 3000 sq.mtrs. Mr.Kulkarni states that steps in that behalf would also be taken in right earnest and expediency. 2] As far as construction of the graveyard on an area of 5000 sq.mtrs is concerned, it is stated that a sum of Rs.20,67,752 has been earmarked at the first instance and the work order is issued on 9th December 2009. One Pravin Bhavsar is a contractor with whom agreement has been 3 executted and site has been handed over to him. 3] The Municipal Council should ensure that the contractor completes the civil work as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 30th September 2010. 4] It has been pointed out that the delay caused is not intentional but as pointed out on affidavit, due to administrative reasons and exigencies. Further, the land could not be secured earlier and in such circumstances, a lenient view may be taken. 5] Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of by accepting the apology of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 but by directing that the construction at site should be completed and the graveyard must become functional and available for use of the community on or before 1st October 2010. Any lapse or delay in complying with this order and direction shall be viewed with seriousness and the Court would not hesitate to take action in accordance with law. 4 6] Mr.Kulkarni appearing on behalf of the Municipal Council states that the Council and the Contractor apprehends some obstruction and interference with the construction work. It is his submission that the Council and the in-charge Chief Officer apprehends that there will be a law and order problem considering the nature of construction at site. This apprehension was voiced yesterday as well. Accordingly, I had orally directed Mr.Patel, learned AGP to take instructions from the concerned revenue and police officers. 7] Accordingly, each one of them is present in court. Mr.Patel on instructions from these officers who are present in court states that the police officers and particularly local police station would ensure that as and when request is made for police protection by either the Council or the Contractor, then, police will take necessary steps so as to prevent any tension or law and order problem. This will assist in completing construction of graveyard. The Revenue and Police officials will render all assistance. In the light of this statement made by Mr.Patel, I have no 5 doubt in my mind that all concerned will act in deference to the order and direction of the Court and ensure proper implementation of the Division Bench order. Contempt petition is dismissed. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)