1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.81 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2755 OF 2005 Amita Shah & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra &Ors. ...Respondents. And Fishery Survey of India & Ors. ...Contemnors. ....... Mr. P.A. Jani with Mr.Mahesh Sowmani i/b. Vigil Juris for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pakale with Mr. R.Rodrigues and Mr. H.K. Vardhan for Respondents.5 to 6 – Contemnor Nos.1 to 3. Ms.T.H. Puranik for B.M.C. ...... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. September 15, 2009. P.C.: The issue which arises for determination of the Court in the exercise of its contempt jurisdiction is, as to whether the construction which was carried out by the Fishery Survey of India is in breach of the directions contained in the order dated 24th July 2008 of the Division Bench. The order of the Court was passed in pursuance of Minutes which were agreed upon by all the parties and signed and 2 tendered before the Court. The Fishery Survey of India furnished the following undertaking to the Court: “(a) To restrict construction of Plot 2A, Sassoon Dock to the ground floor and three upper floors only and at the fourth floor level to construct the staircase mumties on the two sides of the building, lift machine room in the centre and two water tanks (one on each side) as per the measurement approved by Respondent No.2 subject to conditions mentioned in the File No.EEBP C/6755/A/AG dated 23rd December 1999 of Respondent No.2 and not to carry out any other or further development on Plot 2A, Sassoon Dock. (b) To forthwith demolish any construction in excess of the limits set out in (a) above.” 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that, though under the order of the Court, the construction was to be restricted only to the ground floor and three upper floors and the fourth floor level was to be utilized to construct: (i) Staircase mumties, (ii) A lift machine room in the centre and (iii) Two water tanks, as a matter of fact, Respondent No.1 has now constructed an additional floor above the fourth floor. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents disputed this and stated that, above the fourth floor the Respondents have a lift machine room. 3 -3. Having regard to the nature of the grievance and the defence in response to the Contempt Petition, this Court had by its order dated 27th August 2009 directed the Executive Engineer, (Building Proposals) to inspect the site and to submit a report on whether any part of the construction was in violation of clause 1(a) of the Minutes of Order dated 24th July 2007. The Executive Engineer (Building Proposals) was also directed to report as to whether a machine room has been constructed as provided for in the sanctioned building plan on the fourth floor or by the construction of a floor above the fourth floor. -4. The Executive Engineer (Building Proposals) City II has placed on the record his report dated 10th September 2009. The officer is personally present before the Court together with Counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation and has explained the position in person with reference to the sanctioned building plan. The report of the Executive Engineer shows that as a matter of fact, the building has been constructed upto the third floor and within the building, internal finishing work is in progress. A lift machine room is 4 constructed above the centre as shown in the approved plan. At the fourth floor level, two staircase mumties and two water tanks were constructed in accordance with their position shown in the approved plan. The Executive Engineer has found that there appears to be no violation of the sanctioned plan or of clause 1(a) of the Minutes of Order dated 27th July 2007. The Lift machine room has been constructed above the fourth floor level and has to be utilized only for that purpose. -5. During the course of the hearing, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners expressed the apprehension that the portion of the construction above the third floor level may be utilised for a lobby in violation of the sanctioned plan as modified by the Minutes of the Order. In order to assuage this apprehension, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Fishery Survey of India makes a statement, on instructions, that no construction will be carried out in breach of clause 1(a) of the Minutes of Order dated 24th July 2007 and the utilization of the lift machine room shall be only for the purpose for which it is intended. 5 -6. This Court had called for a report from the Executive Engineer (Building Proposals) of the Municipal Corporation since it is the Municipal Corporation which as the Planning Authority had sanctioned the plan and has regulatory control over the construction. The report of the Executive Engineer (Building Proposals) makes it abundantly clear that the construction has not been carried out in violation of the sanctioned plan and the Minutes of Order dated 24th July 2007. In addition, the statement which has been made on behalf of the Fishery Survey of India would sufficiently ensure that there is no attempt to evade compliance with the order passed by the Court. In these circumstances, the Contempt Petition shall stand disposed of. ......