:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 9 OF 2009 SUMMONS NO. 9 OF 2009 SUMMONS NO. 9 OF 2009 IN IN IN CONTEMPT CONTEMPT CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 99 OF PETITION NO. 99 OF PETITION NO. 99 OF 2008 2008 2008 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2595 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 2595 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 2595 OF 2007 Lokmanya (SRA) Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Ltd. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. ... Respondents. And M/s. Bhavani Construction Co. ... Applicant. Mr. Girish Kulkarni i/b. Sandeep Waghmare for the Petitioner. Mr. Utangale for Respondent No.1. Mr. R. Narula i/b. J. Narula & Asso. for Respondent No.3. Mr. P. Sawant for the Applicant. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 17TH 17TH 17TH MARCH 2009. MARCH 2009. MARCH 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . The Applicant has moved the Chamber Summons praying that he should be allowed to intervene in the Contempt Petition and be joined as party Respondent. 2. In the affidavit in support it is sought contended that the Contempt Petition alleges deliberate and wilful dis-obedience of an order passed on 19th November 2007 in Writ Petition No.2595 of 2007. The Applicants are allegedly illegally removed by the Petitioners as :2: Developers. That has been done at the instance of Respondent No.3 to the Writ Petition. The present developer and the Petitioner - Society may collude and even the Slum Rehabilitation Authority may not oppose the prayers and that is how the Applicant has approached the High Powered Committee constituted under the Full Bench decision of this Court. 3. This is hardly a reason to implead the Applicant as a party Respondent to this Contempt Petition. The affidavit in support touches the merits of the controversy. The merits of the main matter is something which will not and cannot be gone into in Contempt Jurisdiction. Once the jurisdiction in contempt is limited and the ambit and scope of the Court’s power in that behalf is clear, I do not see any reason for the Applicant being impleaded as a Respondent to this Contempt Petition. The Applicant need not have any apprehension as he has his own remedies in law to assert his right, if any, in the project and seek appropriate reliefs in such remedies. All such pleas and the merits of the matter are unaffected by the Contempt Petition or any orders therein. Once this clarification is issued, then, there is no need for entertaining the Chamber Summons. It is dismissed subject to this clarification. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)