bsb 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 CONTEMPT CONTEMPT CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 102 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 102 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 102 OF 2008 M/s.Soleri Land Development P. Ltd. ... Petitioner v/s 1. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Krishna i/by Juris Consillis for the petitioner. Mr.Nalawade, Govt. Pleader for the State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 18TH MARCH, 2009 18TH MARCH, 2009 18TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Krishna, advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Nalawade for the respondents. Perused the orders dated 23.4.2008, 3.6.2008 and 18.6.2008. 2. After hearing Mr.Krishna and perusing with his assistance the orders, I am of the considered view that mere retention of the entry on paper or in the records does not amount to the respondents’ violating orders passed by this Court, inasmuch as, having stated clearly that the retention will not affect the rights of the petitioners to seek hearing before the appropriate authority and even shall not influence the forum in 2 passing any order as permissible in law, there is no question of the order being not obeyed wilfully. Once the orders are understood in this light alongwith the effect of the Retention of Revenue Entries, then no case for civil contempt is made out. 3. Contempt petition is misconceived and stands dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) J.) J.)