1 40 cp.290.09 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 290 OF 2009 Navi Mumbai Action Committee. ... Petitioner Versus City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. Akhilesh Dube a/w Mr. Rahul Sharma i/b M/s. M.Tripathi and Company for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M.Kulkarni for Respondent No.1. Mr. A.A.Garge for Respondent No.2. Mr. A.I.Patel, AGP for Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16 th December, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. 2 The breach alleged is of clause (4) of the order dated 2 nd April, 2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the Public Interest Litigation No.175 of 2007. By clause (4) of the said order, the Division Bench accepted the schedule of action set out in the affidavit dated 17 th March, 2003 of the Chief Secretary of the State Government 2 40 cp.290.09 starting from carrying on survey of the encroachers on the Central Park and ending with their eviction. 3 The then Chief Secretary of the State Government has filed an affidavit dated 16 th October, 2009 in which he has stated that all 347 unauthorized structures have been demolished. There is an affidavit filed by the Additional Collector (Encroachment) of Respondent No.1. The affidavit of the Chief Sectary of the State Government shows that substantial compliance is made with the order of this Court dated 2 nd April, 2008 by demolishing 347 structures. 4 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relies upon the photographs showing existence of one or two structures on the Central Park. The said photographs are of 24 th August, 2009 and the affidavit of the Chief Secretary of the State Government is dated 16 th October, 2009. 5 As a substantial compliance has been made with the order of which breach is complained of, no case is made out to initiate action 3 40 cp.290.09 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. If according to the Petitioner, one or two structures are still on the Central Part, the Petitioner is free to bring the same to the notice of the concerned Authorities and in the light of the order of the Division Bench dated 2 nd April, 2008, the concerned Authority is bound to take necessary action for removal of the structures, if any. 6 Subject to what is observed above, the contempt petition is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]