HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE No.634 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order of this Court in W.P.M.P. No.7900 of 2010 in W.P. No.6140 of 2010 dated 18.03.2010 wherein this Court, pending further orders, directed the 6th respondent not to make any further construction. While Sri K.S. Murthy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would assert that the 6th respondent continued construction even after the order was passed, Sri K. Vinay Kumar, Learned Counsel for the 6th respondent, would deny the said allegation and submit that the constructions had already been completed, and the 6th respondent had already inaugurated the hotel on 16th March itself. In view of the serious allegations of violation of the order of this Court, supported by the 3rd party affidavits filed by either side, this Court thought it necessary to call for a report from the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhadrachalam. The Learned Magistrate has since submitted his report enclosing thereto certain photographs, which are made part of the record. In his report, the Learned Magistrate would state that the building at Door No.1-1-61 is a five storied building and, on top of the 4th floor, a small room was constructed upon which there is an over-head tank. He would state that the ground floor is completely constructed except at the entrance of the building and its left portion; in the first and second floor a hotel-cum-lodge is being run and there are seven completely constructed rooms in each floor; inside the 3rd and 4th floors and on the top floor, construction work is already complete; interior works such as flooring tiles in the rooms, fixing the doors, cup-boards, painting works and electrification etc., is still pending; in the corridor tiles were already laid; in one room no doors were fixed and a coir mattress was laid on the floor; on the fourth floor some ceiling work, electrification work in the corridor, fixing of doors to some rooms and laying floor tiles in all rooms are pending; and while space is left for construction of a lift, no lift has been fixed in it. The Learned Magistrate would submit that the ground floor, first and second floors are completely constructed, and a hotel-cum-lodge is being run in it; the construction work in the 3rd, 4th, pent house and over-head tank is completed and the interior works such as plastering, electrification, fixing doors and painting works only remain and the entire building and construction appears to be new. The Learned Magistrate would state that he was not in a position to decide the date of construction. He would submit that, while he had sought the assistance of the Executive Engineer, the Executive Engineer opined that by visual inspection, it was not possible for him to ascertain as to whether any construction was made in the building on or after 18.03.2010; and he had stated that, unless some samples from the constructed structures are taken and analyzed in the quality control laboratory, he would not be able to state the date of construction-whether it was before or after 18.03.2010. It is evident from the report that, as on the date of inspection, the construction in all respects on the ground, first and second floors of the building were complete and, while the outer construction in the 3rd, 4th and top floor was also complete, certain internal works (as is referred to in the report) is still pending. The order of this Court, prohibiting further construction, would not only include construction of the outside of the building but also its interiors. Sri K.S. Murthy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would seek permission of this Court to file objections to the report of the Magistrate. I see no reason to accede to the said request. Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and the degree of proof required to be established is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Since both the learned Magistrate, and the Executive Engineer who assisted him, have opined that it is not possible to be certain as to whether construction was, in fact, completed before or after 18.03.2010, I see no reason to take action against the 6th respondent under the contempt of Courts Act. Suffice to observe that the report of the Magistrate is made part of the record and would reflect the position as on the date of inspection. In the absence of sufficient material on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the 6th respondent had proceeded with construction after 18.03.2010, the contempt case is dismissed. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 23.09.2010 MRKR