1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION rpa CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 75 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1673 OF 2008 ALONGWITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 355 OF 2009 AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. 108 OF 2009 M/s. Landmark Properties & Developers .. Petitioners. v/s. Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Anr. .. Respondents. .... Mr. J. P. Sen a/w. Ms. Archana Patil i/b. Jurists UBI for Petitioners. Mr. R. S. Apte, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. T. H. Puranik for Respondents. Mr. Bhaskar Vishwambhar Kasgikar, Assistant Engineer "B" Ward and Mr. Anil S. Chavan, Junior Engineer "S" Ward-present. Mr. Madhav J. Jamdar, Applicant in Chamber Summons No. 355 of 2009. .... CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : APRIL 28, 2010. P.C. The Petitioners have filed the above Contempt Petition praying that the Officers of the Corporation have willfully committed breach of the order passed by this Court dated 21st 2 July, 2008 and they be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. By an order dated 21st July, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 1673 of 2008, this Court had directed the Municipal Corporation to maintain status-quo as regards the tin sheet fencing on the suit plot, until the next date of hearing i.e. 28th July, 2008. On 28th July, 2008 the matter was not shown on the cause list. On 29th July, 2008, the Corporation demolished the tin sheet fencing on the suit plot. The Petitioners therefore filed the above Contempt Petition. 3. By an order of this Court dated 17th November, 2008, notice before admission of the Petition was directed to be issued to the Respondent. The notice was returnable on 2nd December, 2008. Mr. Anil Kale filed his affidavit dated 1st December, 2008, wherein he contended that the order passed by the Court was not transmitted to the concerned office till 30th July, 2008. This Court by its order dated 6th April, 2009 rejected the explanation submitted by Mr. Kale on the ground that he has not offered any explanation as to in what circumstances the order passed on 3 21st July, 2008 was not transmitted to the concerned office till 30th July, 2008, more so when the Corporation was represented before the Court through a Counsel on 21st July, 2008. A Show Cause Notice was therefore, directed to be issued to the Respondent No.2 and Ms. Sushma Kadlak, Junior Clerk in the office of the Municipal Corporation, Legal Department. The notice was made returnable on 4th May, 2009. 4. Thereafter, the officials of the Corporation filed affidavits explaining their stand in the matter. In the affidavit filed by Ms. Sushma Kadlak, Junior Clerk of the Corporation, she has stated that on 22nd July, 2008 at 11.00 a.m. she had furnished a telephonic message to Mr. Chavan, Junior Engineer with the "S" Ward intimating the order passed by this Court. A Show Cause Notice was therefore directed to be issued to Mr. A. S. Chavan, Jr. Engineer, (Building and Factory), and Mr. B. V. Kasgikar, Assistant Engineer of the Corporation. The notices were made returnable on 1st December, 2009. All the officers have now filed their affidavits. Mr. A. S. Chavan, Junior Engineer and Mr. B. V. Kasgikar, Assistant Engineer are present in Court. All the Deponents of the affidavits have pleaded that there is no willful 4 breach of the orders passed by this Court on their part and have tendered an unconditional apology for the action taken by the Corporation of removing the tin sheet fencing from the suit plot despite an order of this Court dated 21st July, 2008, directing the Corporation to maintain status-quo. 5. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Corporation has submitted that the tin sheets are still lying on the disputed plot and the Corporation undertakes to reconstruct the tin sheet fencing on the said plot within four weeks from today. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and have also perused the affidavits filed by the officers of the Corporation. From the said affidavits, it appears that the officers have not willfully breached the order, but, the status-quo has been breached due to some communication gap amongst them. In any event, the unconditional apology offered by the Officers of the Corporation is accepted and the undertaking of the Corporation to reconstruct the tin sheet fencing on the suit plot within a period of four weeks from today is also accepted. 5 7. Mr. Jamdar, the learned Advocate appearing for the Applicants in Chamber Summons No. 355 of 2009 has submitted that the order directing the Corporation to restore the status-quo as on 21st July, 2008 shall prejudice the rights of his clients. It is therefore clarified that the present order shall not affect, the rights and/or any proceedings taken out by Mr. Jamdar’s clients and orders passed therein. This order shall also not preclude the Corporation from taking any action against the Petitioners in accordance with law after complying with this order. 8. Under the Circumstances the Show Cause Notice No. 108 of 2009 stands discharged and the Contempt Petition stands disposed of. Chamber Summons No. 355 of 2009 also stands disposed of. [ S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]