In a contempt petition, the Bombay High Court held that MMRDA's action under section 32 of the MMRDA Act did not violate the interim order restraining forcible possession, as the Act allows acquisition independent of the notice. The contempt petition was dismissed.
Contempt petition dismissed with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 conpw-7-11.doc
I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
jmi
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 7 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2328 OF 2009.
Rajesh Narayan Tiwari & Ors.
..Petitioners.
vs.
Ratnakar Gaikwad & Ors.
..Respondents.
Ms. Anjali Awasthi, for Petitioners. Ms. K. Bhagalia, for Respondents.
CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 9TH JANUARY 2012.
P.C. :
By this Contempt Petition, the Petitioners have alleged that the Respondents have deliberately and willfully violated the Order dated 25th January 2010, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2328 of 2009.
“In the circular dated 23.10.2007 read with circular dated 11.8.2009 prima facie shows that the petitioners are entitled to premises of 45 sq.meter which is about 450 sq.ft. What is being offered to them at present is premises admeasuring 380 sq. ft. Therefore, interim orders in terms of prayer clause (b).”
2 conpw-7-11.doc
pleased to restrain respondents herein or their servants, agents, officers and employees by an order of injunction in any manner directly or indirectly taking steps for enforcement and implementation of notice dated 23rd September 2009 issued by the respondent no. 1 and taking forcible possession of the tenements occupied by members of the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4.”
(i) After the MMRDA made a representation to the State Government under section 32 of the MMRDA Act, the Society in the very same Writ Petition No. 2328 of 2009, took out a Notice of Motion being No. 262 of 2010, seeking quashing and setting aside of the notice dated 19th April 2010, issued by the State of Maharashtra, which was published in the Official Gazette dated 7th April 2010. In
3 conpw-7-11.doc
the Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion, the Petitioners have contended that by issuing the said notice, MMRDA, has attempted to make the interim relief dated 25th January 2010, granted in favour of the Petitioners, i.e. the Society therein, infructuous. The said contention was not accepted by this Court and the Notice of Motion was disposed of by an Order dated 11th June 2010 which is reproduced hereunder :-
“ It will be open to the Petitioners to independently challenge the proceedings taken out under the M.M.R.D.A. Act To enable the petitioners to take out proceedings the State Government not to issue final Notification under section 32(3) for a period of four weeks from today.
With the above observation, Motion disposed off.”
(ii) Thereafter, the Society filed Writ Petition being Lodging No. 1567 of 2010 against the MMRDA as well as against the State of Maharashtra, challenging the action taken by the Respondents under section 32 of the MMRDA Act. In the said Writ Petition, the MMRDA filed an Affidavit-in-Reply, setting out the manner in which MMRDA would take care of the grievances made and the manner in which it would address the apprehension of the Petitioner- Society. The Petition was therefore by an Order dated 30th July 2010 disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court with a direction to MMRDA to abide by all the statements and commitments made in their Affidavitin-Reply. In view thereof, the Hon’ble Division Bench declined to interfere with the action taken by the MMRDA, as well as the State of Maharashtra, under section 32 of the MMRDA Act.
(iii) Thereafter, the Petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No. 2137 of 2010 impugned the action of the State of Maharashtra and MMRDA
4 conpw-7-11.doc
and moved for interim reliefs against them i.e. to restrain them from taking any further action under section 32 of the MMRDA Act. By a reasoned Order dated 20th September 2010, the Division Bench of this Court declined to grant any interim relief in favour of the Petitioners with a clarification that the refusal of the interim relief shall not come in the way of the Petitioners pressing their claim for compensation in case they succeed in the final hearing of the said Petition.
(iv) In view thereof, several attempts have been made by the society, of which the Petitioners are members, as well as by the Petitioners themselves, to impugn the action on the part of the MMRDA and the State Government under section 32 of the MMRDA Act. However, the society as well as the Petitioners failed to get any reliefs in the said proceedings though they have pointed out the aforestated Order dated 25th January, 2010, and have submitted that action under section 32 of the MMRDA Act by the MMRDA Authority and the State Government is only to make the above interim order dated 25th January, 2010, infructuous. In fact as can be seen from the prayer clause (b), which is granted by the Division Bench of this Court by its Order dated 25th January 2010, the Respondents by the said Order were restrained from directly or indirectly taking steps for enforcement and implementation of the notice dated 23rd September 2009, issued by the MMRDA in taking forcible possession of the tenements occupied by the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. Therefore, MMRDA was restrained to take forcible possession of the tenements, pursuant to the notice dated 23rd September 2009. By the said Order, the MMRDA and/or the State Government are not restrained from invoking the provisions laid down under section 32 of the MMRDA Act, and therefore invocation of the provisions of section 32
5 conpw-7-11.doc
by the MMRDA, can in no way be treated as violation of the Order dated 25th January, 2010, passed by the Division Bench of this Court.
[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the invocation of section 32 of the MMRDA Act by MMRDA constitutes a violation of the interim order dated 25th January 2010.
Whether the Petitioners have made out a case of willful contempt given their subsequent writ petitions challenging the same action.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajesh Narayan Tiwari & Ors.
Ratnakar Gaikwad & Ors.
S.J. Kathawalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
