*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7216/2009 Jeetnarayan Ramnaresh Pandey. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ..Respondent ............... Mr.Shrishail Sakhare, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.M.M.Malvankar, Advocate for the Respondent/BMC. ............... CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. Dated 18th November, 2009. PC:- 1 This petition is directed against the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the Contempt Notice of Motion taken out by the Petitioner/ Plaintiff. 2 Contempt Petition No.322/2000 was filed by the Petitioner alleging that the contemnors have committed willful and deliberate breach of the order dated 02.08.2000 passed in Appeal From Order No.500/2000. By the said order dated 02.08.2000 the structure raised by the Petitioner was protected. The Court heard the Contempt Petition No.322/2000 and by an order dated 20.04.2007 permitted the Petitioner to re-construct the structure after giving advance notice to the Ward Officer. However, the said direction contained in the order dated 20.04.2007 came to be *2* recalled by an order dated 20.06.2007 and the Petitioner was granted liberty to take out appropriate application before the Trial Court for permitting reconstruction of the structure which was subject matter of the Contempt Petition. The Trial Court was directed to decide the Notice of Motion if taken out by the Petitioner in accordance with law. 3 Thereafter, the Petitioner took out the Contempt Notice of Motion and the Trial Court allowed the same by permitting the Petitioner/ Plaintiff to reconstruct the suit structure in the same form in which it existed at the time of its demolition on 05.08.2000. The Petitioner was permitted to carry out reconstruction at his own cost and the same had to be done by the Petitioner/ Plaintiff after giving 07 days’ notice to the Ward Officer of the Corporation and in turn the Ward Officer was directed to depute one officer at the time of carrying out the construction as the construction was to be raised in presence of the representative of the Respondent/Corporation. The said permission was granted subject to final decision of the suit. 4 It is not in dispute that the Petitioner served the notice on the Ward Officer and the Ward Officer did depute two of its officers by name Mr.A.R.Amruskar, Sub Engineer and Mr.K.Parab, Junior Engineer to remain present at the site at 11:00 AM. The Sub- Engineer and Junior Engineer remained present at the site and the Petitioner/ Plaintiff as well attended the site. It is the case of the Respondent/ Corporation that the Petitioner did show the suit site to the deputed officers which was inside the gate of one “Swapna-Lok Towers”. It, thus, transpired to the deputed officers that the third party has already fenced the site and raised the tower. The *3* photographs of the said site were taken by the deputed officers of the Respondent/ Corporation and placed on record of the Trial Court. On perusal of the evidence and material on record, the Trial Court concluded that when the order permitting reconstruction was passed the Court presumed that the suit site was vacant, however, when the parties visited the site it was realized that the building has been already constructed on the suit site. The Trial Court, thus, found that the Respondent/ Corporation has not committed any contempt. They did depute their officers as directed by the Court, however, the construction could not be raised by the Petitioner as some other structure had been already raised on the suit site. 5 In the above referred factual position, it cannot be said that the Respondent is guilty of contempt and the Trial Court has erred in not taking action for contempt. There being no merit in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (A.P. Deshpande, J)