cp231.98 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 231 OF 1998 The State of Maharashtra ...Petitioner Versus Mr. Mahadeo Shivlingappa Dhule ...Respondent ..... Mr. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. the petitioner Mr. S.G. Sangle, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. DATED: 5TH APRIL, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 This court was not satisfied as regards the contentions raised in the affidavit in reply presented by the contemnor and as such taking cognizance of lapses on the part of contemnor, a notice came to be issued to the contemnor directing him to show cause as to why action shall not be initiated against him for filing false affidavit. 2 The contemnor, in pursuance to the notice issued by this court, has caused appearance in the matter and has presented affidavit in reply. On perusal of the papers of writ petition No. 3006 of 1997, it cp231.98 -2- reveals that the contemnor has presented two affidavit in replies in the matter controverting the contentions raised by the petitioner. On consideration of contentions raised in the affidavit in reply, the court dealing with the writ petition was not satisfied as regards the merits of contentions raised by the petitioner and as such in view of order passed on 7.8.1997 permitted the petitioner to delete prayer clause “B” and “C” from the petition and further observed that the petitioner shall have liberty to file suit for recovery of damages. 3 So far as prayer “A’ contained in the petition is concerned, it has been observed by this court while disposing of writ petition on 13.7.2010 that there is, in substance, redressal of grievance made by the petitioner, as the drainage line has already been provided for, as requested by the petitioners in writ petition and as a result of installation of drainage system, there is no percolation of water in the lands. Writ petition, as such came to be disposed of. 4 Considering the contentions raised in the affidavit in reply as well as on consideration of order passed by this Court in writ petition, it is clear that there is no intentional violation of the directives issued by this court at the hands of contemnor. Moreover, the petitioners in writ petition are permitted to agitate their grievance by presenting Civil Suit, if they desire. The petitioners in writ petition also do not appear to cp231.98 -3- have any grievance in respect of lapses attributed to the contemnor. 5 Considering all these aspects, I do not think that further probe in the matter is warranted. Suo moto notice issued by this court shall stand withdrawn. Contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( R.M. BORDE. J.) rlj/