1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.89 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2377 OF 2006 V. P. Nagar Samanvay Samiti. ...Petitioner. Vs. Topworth Properties Private Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents. ....... Mr.Pankaj Bsfna i/b. J.D. Khairnar for the Petitioner. Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Sr. advocate with Mr. Vinit Naik and Ms.Neha Kholkar i/b. Naik Naik & Co. for Respondent No.1. Mr.J. G.Reddy for Respondent Nos.5 to 8. ...... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. September 15, 2009. P.C.: The contempt, that is alleged, is of orders dated 21st June 2007 and 10th August 2007 passed by the Division Bench. The order of the Division Bench dated 21st June 2007 contains the following interim direction: “Construction, if any, carried out in the meanwhile shall be subject to the result of this petition.” The order of the Division Bench dated 10th August 2007 continued the earlier direction, subject to certain clarifications as follows: 2 “We make it clear that if the respondent/developer raises any construction, the same would be covered by the order of this Court dated 21st June, 2007, which is hereby further clarified that the respondents would not be permitted to urge any equity in their favour and if the Court accepts the report then the Court may issue direction for demolition. From these two orders, it is abundantly clear that there was no injunction on construction. In paragraph 2 of the Contempt Petition, the manner in which the alleged breach is complained of, is stated thus (typographical errors have not been corrected): “In the said Writ Petition by an order dated 21st June 20007 this Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant a status quo indirectly, for the argument of Constructing transit camp and that also restrain by this Hon’ble Court in spite this the Respondent No.1 herein is started demolition.” The manner in which the Contempt Petition is drafted and filed shows that it is a complete abuse of the process of the Court. Even according to the Petitioner, there was a breach of a status quo order “indirectly”. Even a bare perusal of the order of the Division Bench would make it clear that there was no injunction on 3 construction. The first order directed that the construction, if any, that was carried out would be subject to the result of the Petition, while the second order clarifies that the Respondents would not be entitle to urge any equity in their favour. In these circumstances, the Contempt Petition would have to be dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that the recourse to the contempt jurisdiction has been taken in a total misuse of the process of law and is an abuse of the process of justice, a deterrent order of costs is warranted. The Contempt Petition shall stand dismissed. The Petitioner shall pay costs quantified at Rs.15,000/- each to the First Respondent and in one set, to Respondent Nos.5 to 8 who are appearing in these proceedings. .....