1 CP : 100 / 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100 OF 2008 Rafik Hasham Pendhari & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Bajirao Ramchandra Jadhav & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioners Ms. Dipti Pawar i/by Mr. S.S. Patwardhan, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. S.A. Masal, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, Senior Counsel i/by Mr. G.H. Keluskar, Advocate for respondent no.3. Mr. G.M. Savagave, for respondents 4 to 11. Mr. Umesh Mankapure, Advocate for respondent No. 13. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATE : 24th June 2011. P.C. 1. The affidavits of petitioner No.3 and respondent No. 2 recording further developments of the allotment of alternate accommodation to the petitioners are taken on record. Additional affidavits of respondent nos. 4 to 8, 10 and 11 tendering unconditional apology to this court are taken on file. Mr. Savagave states that respondent no.9 died about 2 years back. The other respondents have tendered their unconditional apology in their respective affidavits filed earlier. 2 CP : 100 / 2008 2. Despite direction given on the last occasion, respondent no.2 is absent. Mr. Masal states that respondent no.2 is unwell and tenders a certificate issued by Dr. S.S. Gadve from Miraj certifying that respondent no.2 is suffering from hypertension. He is reported to be taking treatment from the hospital, from yesterday. As per the certificate, he is advised rest for 10 days. The Certificate is taken on record and marked X for identification. “ ” 3. The petitioners herein are small businessmen, running their respective businesses from the stalls allotted to them by respondent no. 13- Corporation. On perceiving threats to their occupation of stalls, they had filed a suit in the Civil Court, Sangli for protection of possession and obtained interim orders to restrain respondent no.13- Corporation from demolishing their stalls. In flagrant violation of the orders of the Court, respondents no. 1 to 11, the officers of respondent no.13 demolished the petitioners stalls. Therefore, the petitioners filed the present petition seeking appropriate action of committal for contempt of court against respondents no. 1 to 11. 4. When the petition was taken up for admission, at the intervention of Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, the learned senior counsel, all the contemnors agreed to purge the contempt by contributing towards the 3 CP : 100 / 2008 cost of construction of the alternate premises for the petitioners. Respondent no.13 also agreed to allot alternate premises to the petitioners, in lieu of the demolished stalls. Respondents no.1 to 11 have in fact contributed varying amounts for construction of the alternate premises. The petitioners have also received possession of the alternate premises. In view of the above facts and the unconditional apology, tendered by respondents no. 1 to 11, in my considered opinion, committal of these respondents for contempt is not warranted despite the patent violation of court s order. However, ’ directions as regards the specific contribution to be made by each of the contemnor for acquisition of the alternate premises and award of the costs of the petition will be in order. The Court is informed that the total expenses incurred for acquisition of the premises for the petitioners is of Rs.1,75,500/-. Considering the hierarchy in service of respondent no.1 to 11 with the Corporation, the respondents are directed to share the expenses for acquisition of alternative premises in following manner. Respondent No.1 : Rs.22,000/- Respondent No.2 : Rs.24,500/- Respondent No.3 : Rs. 8,000/- Respondent No.4 : Rs.21,000/- 4 CP : 100 / 2008 Respondent No.5 : Rs.20,000/- Respondent No.6 : Rs.20,000/- Respondent No.7 : Rs.20,000/- Respondent No.8 : Rs.20,000/- Respondent No.10 : Rs.10,000/- Respondent No.11 : Rs.10,000/- The record shows that respondents no.4 to 8 have paid the exact amount of their share, whereas respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 have paid lesser amount. Respondents no. 10 and 11 have paid higher amount. The amount to be paid by each of respondents no.1 and 2 falls short by Rs.4,500/- and the amount to be paid by respondent no.4 falls short by Rs.3,500/-. Respondent no.10 has paid excess amount of Rs.7,500/- and respondent no.11 has paid excess amount of Rs.5,000/-. In the circumstances, respondents no.10 and 11 are required to be reimbursed of the extra amount paid by them by respondents no. 1, 2 and 4. It is, therefore, directed that respondents no. 1 and 2 shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,225/- and respondent no.4 shall pay a sum of Rs.1,750/- to respondents no. 10 and 11 each by issuing cheques drawn in their respective shares. 5 CP : 100 / 2008 5. Respondents no. 1 to 11 shall pay costs quantified at Rs.15,000/-. to the petitioners. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 has graciously offered to bear the liability of costs on behalf of all the respondents. Respondent no.2 shall deposit the costs of the petition in the Court within a period of two weeks from today. With these directions, the petition is disposed off. The office, however is directed to place the petition on board on 8th July 2011 for report of compliance of the directions given to respondent no.1, 2 and 4. The petitioners are at liberty to withdraw the amount of costs deposited in the Court. ( SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. )