S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. In a petition filed by the petitioner, Counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 14th August, 1998 made a statement that in the action taken on 3rd March, 1997 and 14th March, 1997, all encroachments from the land pertaining to the writ petition had been removed and that the respondent-MCD had not permitted any commercial activity to be carried on in the disputed premises. On this statement being made, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

2. Present petition for initiating contempt has been filed on the ground that the action taken by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 3rd March, 1997 and 14th March, 1997 was only a temporary relief and the shopkeepers/car repair shops have again come up on the land and they are continuing to carry on their commercial activities. It is, therefore, stated that the respondent have no regard to the Court and are intentionally flouting their own statement made before the Court.

3. I have carefully read the statement made by the Counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 14th August, 1997. What had been stated by the Counsel on that day was that in the action taken on 3rd March, 1997 and 14th March, 1997 the encroachments had been removed. It is not the case of the petitioner that the statement made by the Counsel on that day was wrong or that the encroachments had not been removed on the dates mentioned in that order. Contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though the encroachments were removed but the same have again come up and it was the duty of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to remove them. Since no undertaking whatsoever had been given by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or by any of its officers that they will continue to remove the encroachments that may come up on the land in question, in my opinion, there is no violation of any order of the Court or any undertaking given to the Court.

4. No case whatsoever has been made out for initiating proceedings against the respondents for their having allegedly committed contempt of this Court. Petition, in my opinion, is not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner will be at liberty to seek his remedies as may be permissible in law.