The company's offer to resume the maintenance of streetlights had been turned down by the commissioner. The SEC officials had approached the civic authorities requesting to resume the contract in light of the High Court order which has directed the SMC to maintain status quo.

However, the SMC which has decided to go to the division bench still hopes that the High Court will uphold the civic body's decision to terminate the contract.

In fact, the SMC has hired six contractors to maintain streetlights in different zone. These contractors had reportedly threatened to move the court if the SMC terminated their contract, leaving the civic body in a dilemma.

When contacted, a senior SEC official said, ``Though it is a fact that SMC does not want to resume the contract, we do not want any controversy. If the SMC has decided not to give us the contract, we cannot do any thing about it.'' He also added that the company had no plans to move the court to enforce the High Court order.

When asked whether the SMC's decision not to let the company resume maintenance work amounted to contempt of court, the senior SEC official said that he wouldn't like to comment on it.

When the same question was asked to municipal engineer B M Desai, he said ``I don't think so.'' Responding to SEC's request to resume work, the SMC replied that it was not possible for them to implement the interim relief granted by the court. ``The question of your company resuming the maintenance work does not arise at all,'' it added.

Meanwhile, the commissioner's decision to terminate the SEC contract was criticised by councillors at general board meeting on June 30. The councillors pulled up the commissioner for not taking the standing committee into confidence before taking such a ``major decision''. Interestingly, after the court humbled the commissioner, he send a proposal to the standing committee seeking its approval for moving the division bench against the single judge bench.