1 cp176group.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.176 OF 2010 Kashinath Waghu Sathe ...Petitioner vs. The Collector, Pune and others ...Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.177 OF 2010 Hari Vithoba Sathe (since deceased through L.Rs.) ...Petitioners vs. The Collector, Pune and others ...Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.178 OF 2010 Kisan Waghu Sathe ...Petitioner vs. The Collector, Pune and others ...Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.179 OF 2010 Ashok Eknath Parkhi & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. The Collector, Pune and others ...Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.180 OF 2010 Eknath Shivram Sathe & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. The Collector, Pune and others ...Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.181 OF 2010 Genu Shankar Sathe & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. The Collector, Pune and others ...Respondents 2 cp176group.sxw WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.182 OF 2010 Ashok Appasaheb Sathe & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. The Collector, Pune and others ...Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.183 OF 2010 Mr.Balu Baban Sathe & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. The Collector, Pune and others ...Respondents Mr.T.D.Deshmukh and Shri Ritesh Kulkarni for the petitioners Ms P.S.Cardozo, A.G.P for respondent Nos.1,3,4 and 6 in C.P.No.176 of 2010 Mr.A.I.Patel, A.G.P for respondent nos.1,3,4 and 6 in C.P.No.177/2010 and 183/2010 Mr.Prashant Chavan i/b M/s. Little & Co. for respondent nos.2 and 5 in all petitions. CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 24,2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5 who are the contemnors. The contemnors are the officers of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (for short MIDC) The facts of these petitions are identical and therefore for the sake of convenience, reference is made to the facts in Contempt Petition no.176 of 2010. The breach alleged is of the Judgment and order dated 18 th November 2009 passed by Division Bench of this Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner. 2 The lands of the petitioner were acquired by the MIDC for public purpose. An agreement was entered into 3 cp176group.sxw by the petitioners and the MIDC as regards the payment of compensation. Grievance made by the petitioner in the writ petition was that the petitioners were entitled to interest from 12th March 2008 till 10th June 2009. The Division Bench disposed of the writ petitions by a common order. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said order read thus : 8 Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, in our opinion, as the petitioners who are agriculturists and who are deprived of the amount of compensation, would be entitled to interest on the amount of compensation actually paid to them for the period from 12.3.2008 (i.e. Day after the agreement was entered into) till 23.4.2009 (i.e day before the amount of compensation was deposited by M.I.D.C with the Land Acquisition Officer) @ 10% per annum. 9 The MIDC is directed to deposit the amount of interest within a period of six weeks from today with the Land Acquisition Officer. 3 The period provided under the order of this Court to deposit the interest amount came to an end on 30 th December 2009. The breach alleged is of clause (9) of the Judgment and order of this Court. The contempt petitions were lodged on 19 th March 2010 alleging breach of aforesaid order of the Division Bench. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the communication dated 4th May 2010 issued by the contemnors to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. He pointed out that instead of complying with the order of this Court in true spirit, a sum of Rs.82,08,388/- was forwarded by the contemnors to the Special Land Acquisition Officer by two cheques with a request to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the said amounts in the District Court. It was pointed out in the said letter that the appeals have been 4 cp176group.sxw preferred by the MIDC against the Judgment of this Court. He submitted that the said letter reflects intention of the contemnors of not complying with the order of this Court. He also invited attention of the Court to the order dated 23rd September 2010 passed by this Court. He submitted that now the petitioners have withdrawn the amount but they have been deprived of the use of the said amount for a period of ten months. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rakesh Kumar Jain and another vs. State of U.P through Collector and another [(2007) 2 SCC 461], the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners will have to be compensated by ordering the contemnors to pay interest on the amount with a view to purge the contempt. He urged that this is a clear case of willful breach and disobedience of the order of this Court. 5 The learned counsel for the contemnors has tendered additional affidavit in reply of the second respondent apart from the affidavit which is already on record. He stated that by the said affidavit the contemnors have explained in what circumstances there was a delay in deposit of the amount. He pointed out that in fact Special Leave Petitions were preferred against the Judgment and order of this Court of which the breach is complained of and the said Special Leave Petitions were dismissed on 30 th July 2010. He submitted that there is no intentional or deliberate breach on the part of the contemnors. He pointed out that on account of delay in complying with the order, the contemnors have tendered an unconditional apology. 6 I have carefully considered the submissions. I have perused the affidavits. The contemnors forwarded the amount payable under the order of this Court to the 5 cp176group.sxw Special Land Acquisition Officer on 4th May 2010 and requested that the said amount may be deposited in District court. In the covering letter addressed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, it is pointed out that the appeals have been preferred before the Apex Court against the Judgment and Order of this Court. There was a delay of more than four months in depositing the amount. A direction was issued by this Court to deposit the amount with the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In the additional affidavit filed today, it is disclosed that a copy of the order of this Court was received by the Regional officer of the MIDC on 2nd December 2009 and immediately on 14th December 2009, the said officer forwarded a proposal for challenging the said order before the Apex Court. It is pointed out that a request was also made by the said Officer for sanction of the amount payable under the orders of this Court. The MIDC decided to prefer Special Leave Petitions in the Apex Court and accordingly Special Leave Petitions were filed. The Demand draft dated 30 th April 2010 in the amount of Rs.82,08,388/- was received by the Regional Officer of the MIDC on 4th May 2010 and the same was deposited with the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 5 th may 2010. Though a request was made to deposit the amount in the District Court, by letter dated 12 th May 2010, it was clarified that amount was to be deposited with the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 7 Thus, there was a delay of about four months and more in complying with the order of this Court. Looking to the steps taken by the officers of the MIDC on the basis of the order dated 18th November 2009, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioners that the breach committed by the MIDC and its officers was either deliberate or willful. Apart from the said 6 cp176group.sxw explanation for delay, unconditional apology has been tendered in the additional affidavit. The apology offered is bona fide considering the steps taken by the officers of the MIDC. 8 No case is made out for initiating action under the Contempt of Courts Act,1971. The decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is based on the section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894. In the facts of the case, in exercise of powers under the contempt jurisdiction, no direction can be issued to the contemnors to pay interest on account of delay. 9 It must be noted here that the compliance was made with the order of this Court more than one month after the lodging of the contempt petitions. In fact, notice was issued on this contempt petition on 29 th April 2010. On account of delay on the part of the contemnors, the petitioners were driven to file the present contempt petitions. Moreover, the petitioners could not get the amount as per the order of this Court for a long time. Though the proceedings deserve to be dropped, the contemnors will have to pay costs of the contempt petitions to the petitioners. The amount of costs is quantified at Rs.15,000/- for each contempt petition. 10 No case is made out for initiating the action under Contempt of Courts Act,1971. The petitions are disposed of. However, the contemnors are directed to pay costs of Rs.15,000/- in each contempt petition to the petitioners. The amount of costs shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from today. The order of payment of costs shall be complied with by the MIDC. JUDGE