THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.103 of 2009 (Dated 8.12.2009) Between: Anand Soni S/o C.L.Soni, R/o Flat No.101 Vaarija Residency H.No.3-6-462, Hardikarbagh, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad. …Petitioner A n d The Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and others ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.103 of 2009 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed complaining disobedience of the order dated 30.9.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.16827 of 2008. 2. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.16827 of 2008 complaining inaction of the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation with regard to the illegal constructions being made by M/s.Rutudharna Constructions represented by its Managing Partners, and Smt.Rekha Srinivas. 3. An interim order dated 30.9.2009 came to be passed in Writ Petition No.16827 of 2008, directing the respondents to maintain status quo. The order passed on 30.9.2009 reads as hereunder:- “ Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the status report submitted by the respondent-Corporation contends that the respondents 3 and 4 are contemplating to complete the construction of fourth floor for which no permission has been obtained by them. In that view of the matter, there shall be status quo existing as on this day with regard to 4th floor and further floors. Post after Dasara Vacation, 2008.” 4. The petitioner filed this Contempt case complaining that the respondents 2 and 3 are proceeding with the construction of 4th floor, despite the status quo order passed in the writ petition. 5. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 13.2.2009. The 3rd respondent received notice and filed counter affidavit on 22.9.2009. Thereupon, the petitioner filed additional material papers along with the affidavit of Ms. Kaushalya Soni, who is stated to be the Special Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner. The third respondent placed on record additional affidavit dated 02.12.2009. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 7 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 is proceeding with the construction of the 4th floor despite the status quo order granted by this Court on 30.9.2008. To buttress her contention, certain photographs of the building have been placed on record. Learned counsel took me to the photographs and strenuously contended that the 3rd respondent completed construction of 4th floor after passing of the the status quo order. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that after receipt of the status quo order, the third respondent has not proceeded with any construction and whatever constructions exist as on this day were made prior to the passing of the status quo order. 9. In response, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers the counter affidavit and additional affidavit filed by the third respondent to point out that there is no consistency with regard to the date of completion of the 4th floor. Much emphasis has been laid on paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit and paragraph 3 of the additional affidavit, which reads as hereunder:- Paragraph (4) of the Counter affidavit: “It is submitted that in the status report of ACP-9, Assistant City Planer dated 25-8-2008, it is stated that Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are constructing the building consisting of ground +3 upper floors and the construction of 4th floor roof laid over and above the existing ground + 3 upper floors. In this regard, it is submitted that the alleged construction is made only till the date of issuance of the orders. After receiving the orders of Hon’ble High Court no construction is made. I am a law abiding citizen and I have implemented the orders of this Hon’ble Court without any deviation, as I have utmost respect to the orders of this Hon’ble Court. Paragraph (3) of the additional affidavit: “It is submitted that the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that the Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant Status quo on 30-9- 2008, and that subsequent to the orders only, the 3rd Respondent completed the construction of the entire 4th floor along with fine plastering and white wash was also done which can be seen in the photographs taken on 15-9-2009, which is wholly incorrect and the same is hereby denied. In this regard, it is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court pleased to grant status quo orders on 30-9-2008 and as soon as we received the order copy, we have stopped the construction and no further construction was made after receiving the orders of this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner has filed photographs, which were alleged to have taken on 15-9-2009 and the said photographs were taken prior to receipt of orders of this Hon’ble Court. It is a fact that in obedience to the orders of this Hon’ble Court, we have not made any constructions and stopped the constructions work immediately after receipt of the copy of orders of this Hon’ble Court. Whatever the constructions are made which were prior to receipt of the orders of this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, I have not violated the orders of Hon’ble High Court.”. 10. A reading the above referred paragraphs indicates that the stand of the 3rd respondent is that he has not proceeded with the construction work after the status quo order. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tries to convince the Court basing on the photographs that respondent No.3 proceeded with the constructions after passing of the status quo order by this Court. 11. The alleged photographs are stated to have taken by the petitioner himself. There is no proof as to the date on which the petitioner has taken the said photographs. In the absence of any convincing proof, it cannot be said that the 3rd respondent has completed the construction of the 4th floor after passing of the status quo order by this Court. 12. The contempt case is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.08-12-2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.103 of 2009 (Dated 8.12.2009)