1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C.P.NO.32 of 2009 Neeladri Shashikshekhar Chakraborty ..vs.. Rameshwar L.Nandanwar and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.Dr.Anjan De,Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Kaptan Adv. for the respondents. C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J. DATED : 24th February, 2010. This contempt petition is filed alleging that the respondents, who are Officers of Nagpur Municipal Corporation, had on 29/1/2009 broken the ‘Ota’ facing the eastern side in front of the petitioner’s shop and thereby violated the judgment and decree dated 2nd January, 2002 passed by the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) in Reg.C.S.No.1023 of 1998 and had put up a lock to the staircase adjoining to the petitioner's shop preventing him from using the staircase in violation of the order dated 21st October, 2004 passed by the court of Civil Judge (JD) Nagpur in Reg.C.S.No.59 of 1998. The petitioner has annexed copies of the photographs showing part demolition of the Ota and photographs 2 showing the lock to the staircase. There is no dispute that the respondents had broken a portion of the Ota on the date and time alleged. It is, however, contended by the respondents in their affidavits-in-reply that they had demolished only that portion of the Ota which was in front of the staircase. According to them, the Ota was required to be demolished as it was an obstruction to the use of the staircase and the obstruction had to be removed in view of the event of International Marathon on 31st of January, 2009. Mr.Anjan De, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that perusal of the photographs showing the Ota adjacent to the staircase makes very clear that there was no need for demolition of the Ota for use of the staircase because by putting up the tiles on the Ota by way of beautification, the height of the Ota was raised by not even half an inch. Perusal of the photographs confirms this position. The order dated 2nd of January, 2002 protects the open space in front of the petitioner’s shop admeasuring 18 x 40 ft., which is the Ota, which portion includes the portion in front of the staircase. In that circumstance, the respondents agreed to purge the contempt by reconstructing the entire Ota at their own expense and had accordingly reconstructed the Ota on 18/2/2010. There is no dispute as regards reconstruction of Ota by the petitioner. The respondents have also removed the 3 lock, which was there at the staircase. They have filed affidavit dated 24th February, 2010 stating that today there is no lock to the door of the staircase and that the Municipal corporation shall not put up the lock to it. In view of this statement made on affidavit, which statement is accepted by this court, and in view of purging of the contempt, Mr.Kaptan, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that unconditional apology tendered by the respondents in their affidavits dated 24th February, 2010 and 18th February, 2010 should be accepted and the petitioner be discharged of the contempt. In view of the fact that the petitioners have purged the contempt at their own expense and in view of the statement made on affidavit, in my view, no further action is called for as against the respondents except for providing costs of the petition to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to pay costs of the petition quantified at Rs.3000/- to the petitioner. Costs to be paid within a period of one week. JUDGE. chute 4