Dismissed

Mariana M. Gonsalves and Anr. v. Crispino Santo Dias Sapeco and 2 Others

Bombay HC3 Apr 2024CP/10/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with earlier orders to demolish constructions, the court found 80% completion. Respondents undertook full completion within four weeks and paid costs. The notice was discharged, and the petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt notice discharged; petition dismissed; costs of Rs. 15,000 awarded to petitioners.

Mariana M. Gonsalves and Anr. Vs Crispino… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

CP-10-24

¶2

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶3

Page 1 of 4 3^rd April 2024

¶4

CP-10-24

¶5

On 19^th March 2024, on noticing that there was prima facie breach of the undertakings furnished by Respondents No.3, 4 and 5, we made the following order :

¶6

“ P.C.

¶7

This is the contempt petition alleging non-compliance 2ith our orders.

¶8

2. In Contempt Petition No.8 of 2023, Respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 5 gave undertakings that they would demolish the constructions put up by them on the first floor within three months. This is recorded by us in our orders dated 09.08.2023 and 30.08.2023.

¶9

3. Mr Coutinho, learned counsel for the Petitioners points out that despite these undertakings, no demolitions have been carried out. Today, neither the third, fourth and fifth Respondents are present in person nor is there any Advocate representing them.

¶10

4. Considering the above circumstances, including the fact that our initial orders were not complied with and now the solemn undertakings given before this Court are also not complied with, we direct the Panchayat of St. Cruz to carry out the demolition of the constructions put up by third, fourth and fifth Respondents on the first floor as expeditiously as possible and in any case within two weeks from today.

¶11

5. A copy of this order must be communicated to Mr Deepak Gaonkar, learned counsel for the Panchayat. Mr Gaonkar is requested to immediately communicate this order to the Panchayat for compliance.

¶12

Page 2 of 4 3^rd April 2024

¶13

CP-10-24

¶14

6. Besides since the third, fourth, and fifth Respondents prima facie have breached the undertakings given to this Court and have not even bothered to either seek any extension of time or offer any justification, we direct the issue of bailable warrants to secure their presence on 03.04.2024. The registry to take necessary steps for the execution of these bailable warrants.

¶15

7. Stand over to 03.04.2024.

¶16

8. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.”

¶17

Today, the learned Counsel for Respondents Nos. 3, 4, and 5, on instructions, submit that the demolition of the first floor is complete to the extent of 80%. They state that the balance of the work will also be completed within three weeks. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have also filed an affidavit and enclosed photographs of the ongoing demolition works.

¶18

On instructions, the learned Counsel for Respondents No.3, 4 and 5, once again undertake that Respondents No.3, 4 and 5 will complete the demolition within a maximum of 4 (4) weeks from today and file necessary compliance reports with the Village Panchayat. A copy of such compliance report will be furnished to Ms Nishad, learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

¶19

The Panchayat must visit the site and confirm whether the demolition has been carried out in accordance with the undertakings given by Respondents Nos. 3, 4, and 5. The Panchayat must also file a compliance report in this Court, verifying compliances.

Page 3 of 4

3^rd April 2024

CP-10-24

Ms Nishad points out that this is the second time the Petitioners were forced to come to this Court to secure compliance. Considering this position, it is only appropriate that Respondents No.3,4 and 5 pay costs of ₹15,000/- to the Petitioners. The learned Counsel for Respondents No.3, 4 and 5 state that the costs of ₹15,000/- will be paid to the Petitioners within a week from today. This statement is also accepted.

¶24

Now that the Respondents are complying with their own undertakings and have tendered an unconditional apology, we discharge the contempt notice and dispose of this Contempt Petition.

¶25

The Contempt Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶26

SANTOSH SHRIDHAR MHAMAL

¶27

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SHRIDHAR MHAMAL Date: 2024.04.04 13:19:12 +05'30'

¶28

Page 4 of 4 3^rd April 2024

Mariana M. Gonsalves and Anr. v. Crispino Santo Dias Sapeco and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariana M. Gonsalves and Anr. v. Crispino Santo Dias Sapeco and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joe Marian Sedrick Pereira Vs the State of Goa Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Vassudev Limo Madkaikar and Anr. Vs State of Goa Thr Its Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Sanjay D. Parab Vs State of Goa Thr Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Mayur Manohar Bandekar and 6 Ors. Vs State of Goa Thr. Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Jotiba Ishwar Mali vs the State of Goa Thr. Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Nagina Akbar Bangui and Anr. Vs Aslam Kassam Aga and 3 Ors.