THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.C.NO.365 OF 2008 ORDER: This contempt case has been instituted complaining that the 6th respondent has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the Order of this Court passed on 11-03-2008 in W.P.M.P.No.5951 of 2008 in W.P.No.4575 of 2008, and hence, he has committed contempt of court, deserving appropriate punishment. The case of the petitioner is that when the 6th respondent was illegally making constructions in premises bearing Municipal No.6-3-1099/1/4 & 5, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, W.P.No.4575 of 2008, came to be instituted, wherein W.P.M.P.No.5951 of 2008, was moved seeking directions to Respondents 1 to 5 to forthwith demolish the illegal constructions (Pent Houses) raised by the 6th respondent on the fifth floor of Shreya Mansion, situated in the above-said premises. Entertaining the Writ Petition on 11-03-2008, the following Order was passed in W.P.M.P.No.5951 of 2008: “ The 6th respondent is restrained from making any further construction on the terrace of Shreya Mansion situated in premises bearing No.6-3-1099/1/4 & 5, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. The 6th respondent shall file the status of the construction existing as on 11th March, 2008 with the Assistant City Planner latest by 15th March, 2008.” The above Order comprises of two limbs. While in the first limb, injunction order was granted restraining the 6th respondent from making further construction in the premises in question, the second limb directs him to file status report with regard to the construction existing as on 11-03-2008, with the Assistant City Planner, latest by 15th March, 2008. It is, therefore, imperative that this Order should be served on the 6th respondent, failing which he would not be able to comply with either of the two directions quoted supra. It is the assertion of the 6th respondent that this Order has been served on him on 31-03-2008 and hence, he could not file a status report about the existing constructions latest by 15-03-2008. Secondly, it was pleaded that by which time the Order came to be passed by this Court on 11-03-2008, whatever constructions that are undertaken by way of interiors of the existing structure, have all been completed and, therefore, the question of violation of the injunction component of the Order passed on 11-03-2008, does not arise. The learned counsel for the petitioners made elaborate submissions and he has also produced a set of photographs, which bear dates to show that the constructions were carried on even on 14-03-2008 and it is wholly incorrect on the part of the 6th respondent to assert that the constructions have all been completed by 11-03-2008 and that no construction was undertaken beyond 11-03-2008 in the premises in question. The learned counsel has also pointed out that there is no approval obtained by the 6th respondent for raising these constructions in the Pent House, which is on the fifth floor of the building in question and without obtaining prior permission and sanction of the local Municipal Corporation, the 6th respondent has taken law into his hands and went on completing the constructions and he has purposefully evaded and avoided receiving the notice and copy of the Order passed by this Court on 11-03-2008. It is further pointed out that the address that was mentioned in the cause- title of this case, of the 6th respondent, is the same, which he has mentioned for seeking building permission of the local Municipal Corporation itself. It was further urged that the Municipal Corporation, on the last occasion, has demolished the illegal structures by making a huge gaping hole in the ceiling of the illegal structures that were constructed and the 6th respondent was going on making constructions to complete the Pent House even beyond 11-03-2008. The Municipal Corporation, which has also filed its counter-affidavit in the above matter, has also pointed out that as on 15-01-2005, the Corporation has taken action against the 6th respondent by demolishing the illegal constructions made on behalf of the 6th respondent, duly making a huge hole in the ceiling of the illegal constructions, but however, the Municipal Corporation would assert that the 6th respondent had filed an application under “Buildings Regularization Scheme” and that a Division Bench of this Court, which was hearing a batch of cases relating to the validity of the “Buildings Regularization Scheme”, has passed general directions not to demolish the structures, which were already constructed and hence, the petitioner’s complaint against the 6th respondent could not be acted upon completely, but however, the constructions sought to be made by the 6th respondent were tried to be stopped by the Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Corporation has asserted that the 6th respondent had filed an application under the “Buildings Regularization Scheme”, as on 14-02-2008 itself, wherein he asserted that the constructions were already completed. In this view of the matter, the Municipal Corporation had not proceeded any further as the validity of the “Buildings Regularization Scheme”, was receiving the attention of a Division Bench of this Court by then. The entire question boils down to this: whether the 6th respondent has deliberately and willfully violated the injunction granted by this Court on 11-03-2008 or not. The fact remains that the 6th respondent has been served with a copy of the Order dated 11-03- 2008 only on 31-03-2008. Whether the 6th respondent has the constructive knowledge of the Order of injunction granted on 11-03-2008 is of no grave consequence, inasmuch as, for penalizing a party for violating an injunction granted by this Court, the most essential requirement is the service of a copy of the Order or at least bringing it to the notice of such a party against whom an Order of injunction has been passed, about the said factum. In the instant case, notices have been dispatched no doubt to the last known address of the 6th respondent, but, if the 6th respondent had vacated that particular premises and moved over to a new premises, as was alleged by him and there was delay that has occasioned in service of an Order of injunction, it will become all the more difficult to penalize a party assuming that such a party had constructive knowledge of injunction passed by a competent court. Contempt of Court Proceedings, being essentially quasi criminal in nature, strict standards have got to be adopted if the Courts were to come to the conclusion that a party had committed Contempt of Court, the consequences might lead up to denying liberty to such individuals. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Court must be convinced beyond any pale of doubt that the Order of injunction has actually been served on the party concerned. In the instant case, the notice in the above-referred Writ Petition as well as the copy of the Order passed on 11-03-2008, have been actually delivered to the 6th respondent on 31-03-2008. Therefore, the 6th respondent is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Even if there were any violation of the Order passed by this Court on 11-03-2008, it would be difficult to firmly find that the 6th respondent did violate such Order willfully and wantonly. Therefore, his conduct in this regard deserves a compassionate view to be taken in the matter. Though the conduct of the 6th respondent has left much to be desired, but yet, it is not sufficient enough to penalize him under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. I, therefore, do not find enough material on record to come to the conclusion beyond any doubt that the 6th respondent has deliberately and purposefully violated the Order of injunction granted by this Court on 11-03-2008. For this reason alone, I consider it appropriate to dismiss the contempt case duly discharging the notice issued therein. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed, but however, without costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 4th November 2009