This Contempt Case No.530 of 2010 alleged violation of an order dated 30.03.2010 forbidding further demolition or road laying. The Court held that no material on record established a wilful violation after the order date. Consequently, the Court dismissed the contempt case.
The Contempt Case is dismissed.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
CONTEMPT CASE No.530 of 2010
ORDER:
The present Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the order of this Court in W.P.No.7193 of 2010 dated 30.03.2010. The order of this Court, violation of which has resulted in the present contempt case being filed, required the respondents to forbear from further demolishing the subject property; not to dispossess the petitioners from the said property; and not to lay a road thereon.
In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, the petitioner would allege that he had communicated the order of this Court on 01.04.2010; the respondents had come over to his property on 27.03.2010 at 5.30 P.M. and had demolished the entire structure before receipt of a copy of the order; even after coming to know of the order passed by this Court, the respondents had wantonly laid a road overnight. The petitioner would express difficulty in residing in the house which has been damaged.
As noted hereinabove, the order of this Court required the respondents not to resort to further demolition. The affidavit, filed in support of the Contempt Case, refers only to the demolition on 27.03.2010. It is further stated therein that the respondents had laid a road thereafter. The affidavit is silent as to the date on which the road was laid by the respondents.
In the counter affidavit, the respondents would state that they had complied with the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (the Act) as extended to the
Kadapa Municipal Corporation; it had laid the road immediately on the next day of demolition i.e. 28.03.2010, and not after 30.03.2010; they had received a copy of the order of this Court through fax only on 01.04.2010; and, after receipt of the order of this Court, the respondents did not violate the orders. The case of the respondents, in short, is that the road was laid on 28.03.2010, well before the order of this Court dated 30.03.2010.
Proceedings, under the Contempt of Courts Act, are quasi-criminal in nature, and the degree of proof required to establish contempt is proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is only on a clear case of wilful and deliberate violation, of the order of this Court, being made out would this Court be justified in proceeding further, under the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents. In the present case the order of this Court is dated 30.03.2010, and no material is placed on record to show that the respondents had either demolished the structure of the building or laid a road on the subject property thereafter. I see no reason, therefore, to proceed further against the respondents.
The Contempt Case is, accordingly, dismissed.
RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J
Date:15.03.2012 usd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the material placed on record establishes a clear case of wilful and deliberate violation of the Court's order dated 30.03.2010 by way of further demolition or laying of a road after that date
Whether further proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are justified in the absence of evidence showing violation of the Court's order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondents
Ramesh Ranganathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
