1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 284 OF 2007 Ramdeoram Dwarikaprasad Vishwakarma. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai. ... Respondents. And Kamlesh Yadav & Ors. ... Contemnors. None for the Petitioner. Mr. Malwankar for Respondent 1. Mr. P.N. Patil for Respondent 5. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 5th APRIL 2010. P.C. :- Mr. Holmagi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is absent. 2. This matter had appeared before the Regular Court on 26th February 2010 and Mr. Holmagi had prayed for liberty to place a rejoinder affidavit. 3. The Court had made it clear that if there is no rejoinder affidavit filed, the matter be proceed without any rejoinder affidavit from the Petitioner. 4. Today the matter is notified. Mr. Holmagi is absent and even the rejoinder affidavit is not filed. 2 5. The Contempt is of orders passed by this Court on 11th May 2007 and 6th June 2007. 6. The grievance is that the First Respondent – Corporation without any due process of law, demolished the structure belonging to the Petitioner. This was done despite an order dated 6th June 2007 directing parties to maintain status-quo. 7. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the affidavit filed by the Corporation. This is what is stated :- “13. I say that offending structures were demolished pursuant to the final order of the demolition on 29.5.2007 with assistance from the Charkop Police Station. This demolition was carried out as the final order was already passed and served upon the Petitioner as long back as 12.5.2007 and there are no prohibitory orders from the Hon’ble Court. Moreover, the Petitioner has filed in part of the nalla and has erected structure thereon, which could have created problems and were required to be removed urgently in view of oncoming monsoon to avoid any flooding in that area. It is pertinent to note that this is a flood proonen area and Petitioner himself has obtained N.O.C. from Court Receiver to raise the height of the ground level of the said plot by 3 feet to avoid the accumulation of water (sea/khadi/bharti)and tried to 3 put up huge unauthorized construction by filing part of the nalla. 14. I say that the Appeal from Order came up for admission on 06/06/2007 before His Lordship Mr. Justice A.S. Oka when the Hon’ble Court was pleased to keep the matter for final hearing on 11/06/2007 and directed the parties to maintain status-quo. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon the said order as and when produced. The Ho’ble Court however, further directed these Respondents to depute the concerned officer to visit the suit premises during the course of the day showing photographs of the suit structure and to produce them on record. Accordingly, I myself along with subordinate staff attached to R/South Ward visited the suit site on 11/06/2007 when it is notice that the construction with G.I. Sheet wall and A.C. Sheet roof has been carried out. I have taken up the photographs of the said construction work, which was in progress on 11/07/2007 at the suit site despite of order of status-quo granted by this Hon’ble Court on 06/06/2007. I further say that it is evident from the pleadings of the contempt petition that the suit structure came to be demolished by the concerned staff of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai on 29/05/2007. However, the photographs dated 11/06/2007 purely shows that 4 the structure has already been put up at suit site. This fact certainly of evident that the Petitioner has breached and flouted the status-quo order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 06/06/2007. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon of this Hon’ble Court to reserve the right of these Respondents to initiate contempt petition against the Petitioner as and when required. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 9 are the copies of photographs dated 11/06/2007 showing the structure was under construction in violation of status-quo order.” 8. Bearing in mind the contents of this affidavit and finding that there is no rejoinder on record so also the Petitioner joining parties who are not concerned with the original proceedings, in my opinion, this is not a fit case for exercising contempt jurisdiction. The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed off. However, this would not preclude the Plaintiff/Petitioner from instituting such proceedings as are permissible in law. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)