IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 29 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 459 OF 2009 SHRI. ABEL PEREIRA THROUGH P.O.A SHRI. MANUEL RODRIGUES ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. ASHOK KUMAR ... Respondent Mr. V. P. Thali, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 25th October, 2010 P.C. Heard Mr. Thali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, respondent has not complied with order dated 10-12-2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 459/2009, by which the respondent was directed to hear the objections of the petitioner and submit a report to the Authority-North Goa Planning and Development Authority. The decision was to be taken after hearing both the parties within a period of six weeks. 3. According to the petitioner, respondent has not complied with order dated 10-12-2009, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 459/2009. Reply was filed by the respondent stating that the time mentioned in the order dated 10-12-2009, was extended by four weeks by order dated 21-01-2010, passed by this Court. 4. The order dated 21-01-2010, passed in M.C.A. No. 51/2010 was passed after hearing the petitioner. Perusal of contempt petition discloses that the petitioner has suppressed important and relevant facts in the contempt petition. Mr. Thali, states that he has no instructions from his client. 5. When a contempt proceeding is filed, the petitioner is expected to place before the Court the correct facts. Order dated 21-01-2010, discloses that the order was passed after hearing the petitioner. The necessary sequitur is that the petitioner has suppressed relevant facts and I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner ought to be called upon to show cause as to why appropriate action should not be taken against him for suppression of material facts. The petitioner to show cause within a period of four weeks. Mr. Thali for the petitioner to inform the petitioner about the order passed today. 6. Perusal of the record reveals that affidavit has been filed by the respondent. Prima facie, the affidavit discloses that direction has been complied with. 7. In view of the above the contempt petition stands dismissed. Stand Over to 29th November, 2010. A. P. LAVANDE, J. EV