25 cp 80.09.doc 1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 80 OF 2009 Suresh Kantilal Salot ... Petitioner Vs. The Mumbai Metropolitan Region & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.D.Soni i/b Mr. S.S.Mishra for Petitioner. Mr. Kuldeep S.Patil for Respondent no.1. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 9th September, 2010. P. C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2 The Petitioner had filed a suit against the MMRDA and its Officers challenging the notice for demolition, wherein he had taken out a Notice of Motion on which ex-parte ad-interim stay to demolition was granted by the order dated 02.11.2008 and it was then continued by further two weeks as per order dated 06.11.2008. On 19.11.2008 this court continued the interim relief granted by the trial court till further orders. On 19.01.2009 demolition work was taken up by the officers of MMRDA in violation of the order of the stay against demolition and thus committed 25 cp 80.09.doc 2 the contempt of the court. On perusal of the affidavit and the entry taken by the police on 19.01.2009 about that demolition work it appears that on that day, four officers, 15 workers and some vehicles were involved in removal of encroachment on the public road. For that purpose forty rooms and shops were got vacated. As per the police report nothing untoward had happen on that day. The affidavit in reply has been filed by Abhay Kumar Ghan, Executive Engineer, MMRDA, wherein he has stated that he had given instructions to his staff not to cause any damage to any portion of the suit structure, however, while demolishing other structures, some minor damage was caused accidentally as heavy machinery was deployed for the demolition work. He also stated that as soon as it was noticed the use of the machinery was stopped. He also offered unconditional apology for any breach of the order which was unintentional. 3 Admittedly in the Appeal against the order, the MMRDA was directed to just consider the claim of the Petitioner for alternative accommodation and Appeal from Order was disposed of. The suit is still pending. 4 It appears that large number of structures were found on road coming in the way of road widening project. The structure of the 25 cp 80.09.doc 3 Petitioner was only safe because of the ad-interim stay granted by the court while other structures in the area were required to be demolished with deployment of heavy machinery and men. While doing that, some damage was caused accidentally to the property of the Petitioner. In my considered opinion, it was not intentional disobedience of the order of this court and therefore there is no need to take any action for contempt. 5 Therefore, Contempt Petition stands dismissed. (J. H. BHATIA, J.)