1 caa1542.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Civil Application No. 1542 of 2010 IN Appeal from Order No. 509 of 2009 Mr. Jeffrey Veyra S/o. Late Johnny Thomas Veyra ....Appellant v/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & anr. ....Respondents Mr. A.M.Saraogi for the appellant. Mr. Ketan Joshi i/b Sanjiv A. Sawant for respondent no.2. Ms. K.K.Soran for BMC. CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. 8th November, 2011 PC: The instant application is presented seeking following reliefs:- (a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation to forthwith hold an enquiry against all such responsible persons being responsible for flouting the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court being the order dated 30th August, 2010 passed in Appeal from Order No. 509/2009 by which allegedly they have been directed to demolish the structure of the appellant and subject to outcome of such enquiry, necessary action be initiated against them. (b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to prosecute the concerned officers for the criminal contempt of court and be dealt with in accordance with law. (c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the officers of the Respondents No. 1 be directed to forthwith 2 caa1542.10.sxw re-construct the structure of the applicant situated at Fernandes Compound, Next to Ziklla Wadi, Suren Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 as it was on the date of demolition at their own cost and/or in alternate, the applicant be permitted to re- construct the same on such terms as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. 2. The Appeal from order presented by the petitioner bearing No. 509/2009 with Civil Application No. 624/2009 came up for consideration before this Court on 30th August, 2010. This Court after hearing the arguments of respective parties passed following order:- “ This Appeal was filed against the refusal of grant of ad- interim injunction pending the Notice of Motion. The Notice of Motion is still pending and this Appeal is also pending for last about 16 months without any progress. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the following directions will meet the ends of justice: Respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation shall file reply to the Notice of Motion in L.C.Suit No. 769 of 2009, within two weeks from this date and the Notice of Motion be finally heard and disposed of within four weeks thereafter. The Appeal and the Civil Application No. 624 of 2009 stand disposed of accordingly.” 3. The Appeal from Order was directed against the proposed action of demolition in pursuance to the notice issued by the Corporation. The trial Court i.e. The City Civil Court refused to grant ad-interim relief. Appeal from Order came to be disposed of and thereafter since there was no ad-interim relief, it appears that disputed structure has been demolished. However, while making report, the Assistant Engineer (B & F.) Ward has reported that as per the instructions of the High Court, the office staff has demolished the structure on 16th September, 2010. This according to the applicant is an act in violation of the orders passed by this Court and as cognizable by this Court. It is true that 3 caa1542.10.sxw reporting by the Assistant Engineer to the Higher Authorities is totally erroneous since there was no order passed by the High Court. However, the fact remains that the notice of demolition was issued to the applicant and his request for grant of ad-interim relief was rejected by the trial Court. Since there was no ad-interim protection in favour of the applicant, the disputed structure appears to have been demolished. I do not find any merits in the application in view of the facts and circumstances stated above. The Application stands rejected. 4. This order shall not come in the way of the applicant in taking appropriate measures before the trial Court. (R.M.BORDE, J)