Dismissed

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. Syed Shah Yousuf Hussaini

Telangana HC4 Jan 2013CC/311/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition filed by GHMC against a Wakf institution for violating an interim order suspending construction, the court dismissed the case. It held that there was no specific evidence proving the respondent proceeded with work despite the court order, making punishment inappropriate.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case dismissed; CRP Nos. 304 and 305 of 2010 dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs.

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Vs Syed Shah… — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

C.C.NO. 311 OF 2010

¶3

AND C.R.P.NOs. 304 AND 305 OF 2010

¶4

DATE: 04.01.2013

¶5

C.C.NO.311 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner And Syed Shah Yousuf Hussain .. Respondent C.R.P.NO.304 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner And Madjid-e-Hussaini .. Respondent C.R.P.NO.305 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner And Madjid-e-Hussaini and another .. Respondents

¶6

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶7

C.C.NO. 311 OF 2010

¶8

AND C.R.P.NOs. 304 AND 305 OF 2010

¶9

COMMON ORDER:

¶10

The contempt case is filed by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation against the respondent seeking to punish the respondent under the provisions of Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for violating the order of this Court dated 02.02.2010 in C.R.P.M.P.No.446 of 2010 in C.R.P.No.305 of 2010.

¶11

2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶12

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the contempt case are the following:

¶13

The respondent, Muthavalli of Masjid-e-Hussaini filed O.S.No.173 of 2009 before the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal”) for permanent injunction restraining the officials of the petitioner/GHMC from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and in any way interfering with carrying out the repair works of the schedule property. In the said suit, the respondent filed I.A.No.676 of 2009 seeking temporary injunction and the learned Tribunal granted temporary injunction against the petitioner/GHMC. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/GHMC filed C.R.P.No.305 of 2010 and this Court by order dated 02.02.2010 in C.R.P.M.P.No.446 of 2010 granted interim suspension of the order passed by the Tribunal and also directed the

¶14

respondent not to carry out any construction work in the schedule premises. Thereafter, this contempt case has been filed by the GHMC contending that the interim order passed by this court had been violated by the respondent and therefore, he is liable for punishment under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶15

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent having full knowledge of the order passed by this Court proceeded with the construction work in violation of the orders passed by this Court.

¶16

5. The respondent in the counter affidavit submitted that he received the order dated 02.02.2010 in CRPMP No.446 of 2010 in CRP No.305 of 2010 on 05.03.2010 and then stopped proceeding with any kind of work in the schedule premises and never violated or disobeyed the order of this Court and sought to dismiss the contempt case.

¶17

6. Subsequently, the Wakf Tribunal by its judgment dated 04.05.2012 decreed the suit for perpetual injunction filed by the respondent against the petitioner as prayed for. The learned Tribunal, however, further passed the decree to the effect that the GHMC shall be at liberty to initiate action under the provisions of the GHMC Act against the plaintiff No.1 Wakf institution if it had resorted to construction of new buildings without sanction and approved plan.

¶18

7. This Court at the instance of the petitioner/GHMC appointed the Registrar (Administration) as Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule premises to note down the physical features, make local investigation and submit detailed report. The Commissioner in his report stated that there are 10 shops on the western side of the schedule site which was newly constructed, but they are not under repair or renovation. The Commissioner though stated in his report that he observed that on eastern side of the premises construction

¶19

work has been made for providing four shops and the construction has started approximately in the earlier months of 2012. He further stated in his report that the respondent, who was present at the time of inspection stated that he completed the construction work in the month of February itself. Though the Commissioner could be able to say that the construction work is new one, stated in his report, that it is difficult to find out the day from which the said construction was carried out as directed in the order. The Commissioner specifically stated in his report that the activity which was being carried on in the schedule premises is a construction activity, but not mere repair work.

¶20

8. Basing on the report of the Commissioner, the learned standing counsel for the petitioner/GHMC would submit that in the suit, the respondent specifically averred that he was conducting repairs to the structures in the schedule mentioned premises and that the petitioner/GHMC has been interfering with the said repair work, Practically took up the construction activity and by carrying out the construction activity contrary to the assertion made in the plaint, the respondent committed contempt of Court and therefore, he is liable for punishment.

¶21

9. It is true that from the report of the Commissioner the construction activity was being carried on in the schedule premises. Despite the said fact, I am of the considered view that unless there is specific evidence as to the fact whether the respondent proceeded with the construction work in spite of the order of interim suspension passed by this Court in CRPMP.No.446 of 2010, it is not appropriate on the part of this Court to punish the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner/GHMC that it is going to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 04.05.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal also in its judgment specifically mentioned that the defendant/GHMC is at liberty to initiate action under the provisions of

¶22

the GHMC Act against the plaintiff No.1 Wakf institution if it had resorted to construction of new buildings without sanction and approved plan. Therefore, it is needless to mention that if any construction is made in violation of the provisions of GHMC, the petitioner/GHMC can proceed against the respondent and if there is any appeal preferred by the GHMC, the said issue can be canvassed in the appeal. But, in the absence of any specific evidence as to whether the respondent proceeded with the construction work in spite of receipt of the orders passed by this court, I think it is not appropriate to punish the respondent for violation of the order dated 02.02.2010 passed by this Court.

¶23

10. The contempt case is therefore, dismissed. Since the suit is decreed, the CRP Nos.304 and 305 of 2010 are dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

_________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 04.01.2013 Kvrm

¶25

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶26

C.C.NO. 311 OF 2010 AND

¶27

C.R.P.NOs. 304 AND 305 OF 2010

¶28

DATE: 04.01.2013

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. Syed Shah Yousuf Hussaini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. Syed Shah Yousuf Hussaini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. M.E.a.Askari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

D.Sudharshan, Vs Anti Corruption Bureau

The State of a.P., Vs T.Kabir Das Goud

Koorapati Yesudas, Vs State, rep. by the Inspector of Police

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Coporation Vs Madjid-e-Hussaini

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Coporation Vs Madjid-e-Hussaini