IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 11 OF 2005 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 11 OF 2005 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 11 OF 2005 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.2428 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.2428 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.2428 OF 2004 BINAY BAHADUR SRIVASTAVA ... PETITIONER BINAY BAHADUR SRIVASTAVA ... PETITIONER BINAY BAHADUR SRIVASTAVA ... PETITIONER Versus (Org.Petitioner) Versus (Org.Petitioner) Versus (Org.Petitioner) MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & Ors. ... RESPONDENTS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & Ors. ... RESPONDENTS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & Ors. ... RESPONDENTS (Org.Respondents) (Org.Respondents) (Org.Respondents) Mr. B.B.Srivastava, Petitioner in person. Mr. B.B.Srivastava, Petitioner in person. Mr. B.B.Srivastava, Petitioner in person. Mr. G.W.Mattos, AGP, for Respondents Nos.1, 2 & 6. Mr. G.W.Mattos, AGP, for Respondents Nos.1, 2 & 6. Mr. G.W.Mattos, AGP, for Respondents Nos.1, 2 & 6. CORAM: S.K.SHAH,J. CORAM: S.K.SHAH,J. CORAM: S.K.SHAH,J. DATE : 15th July, 2005. DATE : 15th July, 2005. DATE : 15th July, 2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the Petitioner. It is the grievance of 1. Heard the Petitioner. It is the grievance of 1. Heard the Petitioner. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the order dated 12.5.2004 is not the Petitioner that the order dated 12.5.2004 is not the Petitioner that the order dated 12.5.2004 is not complied with. By that order, the Respondents were complied with. By that order, the Respondents were complied with. By that order, the Respondents were directed to provide the information to the Petitioner so directed to provide the information to the Petitioner so directed to provide the information to the Petitioner so that the parties can arrive at some settlement and see that the parties can arrive at some settlement and see that the parties can arrive at some settlement and see that the repairs work is carried out fast and completed that the repairs work is carried out fast and completed that the repairs work is carried out fast and completed within a reasonable time. There is another order which within a reasonable time. There is another order which within a reasonable time. There is another order which is referred in this Petition dated 23.8.2004 whereby is referred in this Petition dated 23.8.2004 whereby is referred in this Petition dated 23.8.2004 whereby direction was given to the Respondents that they shall direction was given to the Respondents that they shall direction was given to the Respondents that they shall consider the documents produced by the petitioner and consider the documents produced by the petitioner and consider the documents produced by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within two weeks thereafter. pass a reasoned order within two weeks thereafter. pass a reasoned order within two weeks thereafter. 2. The affidavit is filed by the Respondents 2. The affidavit is filed by the Respondents 2. The affidavit is filed by the Respondents stating therein that all the information sought by the stating therein that all the information sought by the stating therein that all the information sought by the petitioner by his application dated 14.5.2004 have been petitioner by his application dated 14.5.2004 have been petitioner by his application dated 14.5.2004 have been supplied and the order dated 23.8.2004 has also been supplied and the order dated 23.8.2004 has also been supplied and the order dated 23.8.2004 has also been complied with. From the Respondents’ various letters complied with. From the Respondents’ various letters complied with. From the Respondents’ various letters which are addressed to the petitioner are annexed,it is which are addressed to the petitioner are annexed,it is which are addressed to the petitioner are annexed,it is clearly indicated that the information sought by the clearly indicated that the information sought by the clearly indicated that the information sought by the petitioner have been supplied. From the affidavit filed petitioner have been supplied. From the affidavit filed petitioner have been supplied. From the affidavit filed by the Respondents, it appears that the petitioner has by the Respondents, it appears that the petitioner has by the Respondents, it appears that the petitioner has not been co-operating with the officers of the not been co-operating with the officers of the not been co-operating with the officers of the Respondents Nos 1 and 2 for carrying out the repair Respondents Nos 1 and 2 for carrying out the repair Respondents Nos 1 and 2 for carrying out the repair work. The last two letters dated 5.2.2005 and 18.2.2005 work. The last two letters dated 5.2.2005 and 18.2.2005 work. The last two letters dated 5.2.2005 and 18.2.2005 clearly mention that the authorities had requested the clearly mention that the authorities had requested the clearly mention that the authorities had requested the petitioner to co-operate in carrying out the repair petitioner to co-operate in carrying out the repair petitioner to co-operate in carrying out the repair work. It was also pointed out to the petitioner that work. It was also pointed out to the petitioner that work. It was also pointed out to the petitioner that funds available could be utilised for the repair work funds available could be utilised for the repair work funds available could be utilised for the repair work and if they are not utilised before 31.3.2005, it will and if they are not utilised before 31.3.2005, it will and if they are not utilised before 31.3.2005, it will lapse. lapse. lapse. 3. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has 3. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has 3. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that those funds have now lapsed as no repair submitted that those funds have now lapsed as no repair submitted that those funds have now lapsed as no repair work could be carried out because of the attitude of the work could be carried out because of the attitude of the work could be carried out because of the attitude of the petitioner. It appears the attitude of the petitioner petitioner. It appears the attitude of the petitioner petitioner. It appears the attitude of the petitioner is that of going into unnecessary technicalities and is that of going into unnecessary technicalities and is that of going into unnecessary technicalities and objecting to the repair work which the Respondents Nos. objecting to the repair work which the Respondents Nos. objecting to the repair work which the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were required to carry out. 1 and 2 were required to carry out. 1 and 2 were required to carry out. 4. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit 4. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit 4. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Contempt Petition. As such, the Contempt in this Contempt Petition. As such, the Contempt in this Contempt Petition. As such, the Contempt Petition is dismissed. Petition is dismissed. Petition is dismissed. ---- ---- ---- (S.K.SHAH,J.) (S.K.SHAH,J.) (S.K.SHAH,J.)