* 1 * C.P. 212.2008 in W.P. 1270.2008 26.10.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 212 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1270 OF 2008 Bharti Airtel Ltd & anr. ...... Petitioners V/S. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. ..... Respondents * * * * Mr. Hateez Rehman with Mr. Umang Jajoo i/by. M/s. D.H. Law Associates, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.S. Apte i/by. Mr. A.A. Garge, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. S.D. Rayilkar, AGP for respondent no.2. * * * * CORAM :- SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. 26 October, 2010. P.C. :- 1. This contempt petition alleges breach of the interim order dated 25.02.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in * 2 * C.P. 212.2008 in W.P. 1270.2008 26.10.2010 Writ Petition No. 1270 of 2008. The contempt petitioners are the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1270 of 2008 who have filed the petition challenging demand notices issued by respondent no.1- Municipal Corporation. In the petition, they had sought an interim order to restrain the respondent-Corporation from taking any steps pursuant to the demand notices and/or from demolishing any of the said sites of the petitioners in Navi Mumbai. By the order dated 25.02.2008, notice was issued to the respondents and it was directed that In the meantime, “ respondent no.1-Corporation would not demolish the structure in question”. The structure in question in this case was a mobile tower installed by the petitioner on the terrace of the building of Sayali Co-operative Housing Society Limited at Navi Mumbai. 2. The petitioners allege that on 12.03.2008 at about 2.30 p.m. a Junior Engineer of respondent no.1 by name Mahesh Holmar went to Sayali Co-operative Housing Society Limited removed and dismantled the two antennae, cut the power supply cable and sealed the electric meter at the site of the petitioners. This action on the part of the officer of the respondent, according to the * 3 * C.P. 212.2008 in W.P. 1270.2008 26.10.2010 petitioners, amounts to breach of the order dated 25.02.2008. There is no dispute that the structure of tower has not been touched by the respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the action taken by the officer of the respondent of cutting the power supply cable and sealing the electric meter of the tower rendered the tower inoperational and therefore the action amounts to demolition of the tower. The respondent in its affidavit-in-reply makes a categorical statement that there is no demolition of mobile tower as alleged by the petitioners. The petitioners have produced photographs of the tower which show that the tower is very much in existence. However, its power supply cable is seen to be cut and the meter is seen to have been sealed. The photographs are taken on file. The action though rendered the tower in-operational, it cannot be said to be an action of demolition of the tower. The petitioners subsequently filed Civil Application No. 765 of 2008 in the writ petition, which was allowed by the order dated 13.03.2008 and the petitioners have been permitted to get the power connection restored in order to * 4 * C.P. 212.2008 in W.P. 1270.2008 26.10.2010 enable the petitioners to make the tower operational. The tower has since been operational. 4. The contempt petition is a completely misconceived. The action on the part of the respondent cannot be said to be an action of demolition of the structure of the tower. Hence, the contempt petition is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]