Partly allowed

India Pentecostal Church of God represented by President v. E.S.Yohan

Telangana HC13 Mar 2023CC/1174/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt case addressed wilful disobedience of an interim order restraining construction. Based on photographic evidence showing violation, the bench held the construction illegal. The petition was allowed to the extent of directing demolition of the structure, while declining to impose imprisonment due to the respondents' age.

What did the court decide?

Order allowing the contempt case and directing the respondents to demolish the illegal structure within 8 weeks. Matter remanded to municipal authorities for verification of building permits.

India Pentecostal Church of God represented by President… — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE No: 1174OF 2020

¶7

Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to punish the Respondents/ Contemnors herein for violating, disobeying the orders of the High Court dated:30-'1 1-2020 in WP.No.1 5985 of 2O2O

¶8

Between:

¶9

lndia Pentecostal Church of God represented by President, P.L.Samuel Sio Gandaiah, aged 66 years, presently Ryo Faith Home, lP Church #3-5-85412, Old MLA Quarters Road, Behind Bharath Petrol Pump, Hyderguda, Hyderabad - 500 o29

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

'1. E.S.Yohan, S/o Paul, aged about 69 years, Pastor, lndia Pentecostal Church of God Fellowship Society, R/o H.No.4-'10-69214, Siddartha Colony, Shanthinagar, DVK Road, Nalgonda Town and District.

¶13

Esram Visranthamma, Wo E.S.Yohan, aged about 35 years, Occ:Housewife, Fyo H.N0.4-10-692 I A, Siddartha Colony, Shanthinagar, DVK Road, Nalgonda Town and District.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents from making further change of nature of the schedule property in the interest of justice.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MAHMOOD ALI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N. ARTHI GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION URBAN

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

ORDER

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY T l-l PT E o 1 f o

¶22

This Contempt Case, under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, Lg77, is filed by the petitioner against the respondents a'eging wilrfur disobedience of the interim order dated 30.1I.2020 passed by this Court in W.p. No.159B S of 2020.

¶23

The allegations made by the petitioner are that in spite of the interim orders passed by this Court in W.p. No.159B 5 of 2020 on 30.I1.2020, the respondents have proceeded with the construction over the schedule property. It i: ='': " ls submitted that the respondents, inspite ", , n . ,^., t " interim order passed by this court, have compreted ,n." r construction and obta ined electricity connection ' To substantiate its submission, the petitioner has filed photographs to show the stage of construction I tefore and after the order dated 3o.7r.2o2 0 was passed and ultimately, prayed to punish the respondents for wi,ful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 30.11.2020 passed ,.,yby uuthi s LC ou r rt in W.p.No.159B5 of 2020.

¶24

) Respondents have filed a have proceeded counter affidavit denying that they with constructio n even after passing of the interim

¶25

*/ (

¶26

¶27

order dated 30.11.2020 by this Court. It is submitted that on 09.12.2020 at about 10:15AM, yacharam yacub and K.Lazar trespassed into their premises in the absence of respondent No.1. The above named persons have pushed the respondent No.2 and her daughter and abused her in filthy language and threatened them. That they have taken photographs of the building and the inside rooms and further threatened to dispossess them within 15 days. Immediately, on coming to know about the trespass, the respondent No.1 has lodged a criminal complaint with the Superintendent of police, Nalgonda. complaining about the illegal acts and omissions committed by the henchmen of the petitioner and the same is pending investigation. The respondents have submitted that they have highest respect for this Court and the orders passed and they never violated the orders of this Hon,ble court and urtimatery prayed to dismiss the contempt case.

¶28

The petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that respondent No.1 is an Ex-pastor and though he has been transferred to Eluru, he continues to reside illegally in the pastor,s quarter and claims that he is the owner of the said property based on some Fabricated and bogus documents. AII the three Courts i.e, trial Court in O.S.No.10B of 2005, the appeilate Court in A.S.No.11 of 200g and

¶29

¶30

the Hon'ble High Court in S.A.No.682 of 2OtO have held that respondent No.1 herein had no right or title to the schedule property. It is also submitted that the photographs filed along with the Writ Petition and ones filed along with the contempt petition could clearly show the various stages of construction being made by the respondents in the schedule property. That the photographs were taken by one Mr.Yacob Yacharam, the local representative of the petitioner, after the order of this Court dated 30.11.2020 and ultimately prayed to punish the respondents for disobedience of the order dated 30.11.2020 passed by this Hon'bte Court in W.P.No.159B5 of 2020.

¶31

Heard Sri Mahmood Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.N.Aarthi, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶32

Perused the entire material on record including the photographs filed.

¶33

In W.P.No.15985 of 2020, this Court vide order dated 30.11.2020 has passed the following order:

¶34

"xxxx....Respondent Nos,5 and 6 are restrained from making any constructions or alienating the schedule property pending further orders of this Court."

¶35

¶36

B. The photographs filed along with the Writ petition No.15985 of 2O2O reveal that construction as on the date of filing of the W.p i.e, on 16.09.2020, was only at the stage of pillars and RCC roof was laid, but the subsequent photographs filed on Og.IZ.2OZO reveal that respondents have proceeded with further construction activity in spite of the interim orders of this Court, dated 30.11.2020, and the finishing work is also completed subsequently. Even though a counter affidavit has been filed by respondents denying that they have disobeyed the orders of this Court dated 30.11.2020 and a reading of the same would reveal that except making a bald denial, no proof is filed to substantiate the said claim. Further, in the counter aFfidavit the respondents have clearly admitted that the petitioner's men have trespassed into the schedule property on 09.t2.ZO2O and taken the photographs for which a police complaint was also filed. The photographs filed by the petitioner along with the contempt evidence the fact that construction activity was going-on in breach of the order passed by this Court dated 30.11.2020 and the police were also present on that particular date i.e, Og.l2.2O2O. Moreover, the respondents have not placed anything on record to show that the construction was made after obtaining necessary building permission from the Competent Municipal Authority. !,

¶37

¶38

It is pertinent to state that the legal consequences of what has been done in breach of or in violation of the order of stay or injunction can be undone and the parties could be put back to the same position as they stood immediately prior to such order of stay or injunction. Here, it is apt and appropriate to refer the decision in Delhi Development Authority (DDA) v. Skipper Construction Company (P) Ld.1 , wherein the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Paras 18 to 21, held as follows:

¶39

"18. The above principle has been applied even in the case of violation of orders of injunction issued by civil courts. In Clarke v. Chadburn [(1985) 7 WLR 78: (t9BS) l Att ER 2t7] Sir Robert Megarry V-C observed: (WLR pp. 80-91: All ER p. 213h-j):

¶40

'[ need not cite authority for the proposition that it is of high importance that orders of the court should be obeyed. Willfut disobedience to an order of the court is punishable as a contempt of court, and I feel no doubt that such disobedience may properly be described as being illegal. If by such disobedience the persons enjoined claim that they have validly effected some charge in the rights and liabilities of others, I cannot see why it should be said that although they are liable to penalties for contempt of court for doing what they did, neveftheless those acts were validly done. Of course, if an act is done, it is not undone merely by pointing out that it was done in breach of the law. If a meeting is held in breach of an injunction, it cannot be said that the meeting has not been held. But the legal consequences of what has been done in breach of the law may plainly be very much affected by the iegality. It seems to me on principle that those who defy a prohibition ought not to be able to claim that the fruits of their defiance are good, and not tainted by the illegality that produced them.'

¶41

'^(rsgo) a scc ozz

¶42

¶43

In Century Flour Mi s Ltd. v. S. Suppiah IAIR tgTS Mad 27O: 797s SCC onLine Mad 731, it *"r'i"to oi') rutt aench of the Madras High Court that where an act is done in violation of an a poticy, order of stay or injunction, it,is the duty "f;;r;;;,"';, to set the wrong right and not altow the i"rif,r;u;,on * rnu wr?ngdoing. The inherent power of the court, it wasieru, is not the only wrong avairabre in the in such interest a case, of justice.but it is bound i" "r.ir,r" it to undo

¶44

In sujit Pat v, prabir Kumar Sun IAIR tga6 cat 22o : 79ai S'Cc OnLine Cal 7461, a oivision'aenci-o-r-rn'" aun*u High Court has taken tht ro r c i b t y d i s p o s s , "^{r, u i, n u " r, iu, l,i i," i ;.,! !,i!;',} "^f f, ", Z::::: ii injunction and took possession of the property. The court directed the restoration of possession to the plaintiff witn ne aiO of poticeThe Court observed that no technicality can prevent the court from doing justice in exercise of its inherent powers. It held that the object of Rute 2-A of order 39 *,,, o" iuifiiJ o,ity'*n"r" rurn mandatory direction is given for restoration oi-rorrLrr,o" * rnu aggrieved party. This was n ecessary' it observed' to prevent the abuse of process of raw.

¶45

There is no doubt that tt siven errect ,' u, iii' ,.|1'1,'"i::!r:::::'r:; ::.7:l:::::1, procedurat or other technicat objections. io,J,"""ir, * u constitutional power and wh 142, atl such ooiu,orr- ro,o'ifi;:il';:l ir::::I :J': ::::iZ full justice between the parties before it.,,

¶46

In the instant case, in view of the photographs filed by the petitioner before and after the date of passing oF the interim order dated 30.11.2020 restraining the respondents herein from making any further construction clearly establish that the respondent was making construction even after 30.11.2020. Therefore, this Court has to necessariry come to the concrusion that respondents have completed the construction after the interim order dated

¶47

¶48

¶49

30.LL.2020 passed by this Court and thereby deliberately and willfully violated the orders of this Court dated 30.11.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.15985 of 2020.

¶50

Though under Section 12 oF the Contempt of Courts Act, the respondents are liable for punishment including imprisonment for the willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court dated 30.11.2020, having regard to the ages of the respondents. this Court is not inclined to impose the punishment of imprisonment on the respondents. However, the respondents cannot be let off scot-free for their illegal actions and omissions committed by them deliberately in violation of the order of this Court dated 30.11.2020. The respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong doing and benefit from the same. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the structure constructed in deliberate and willful violation of the order of this Court has to be demolished. Moreover, this Court has ample power under Rule 27 of the Contempt of Court Rules to direct the municipal authorities to verify if any building permission has been obtained by respondents before making construction and on verification iF it is found that the construction was made without obtaining any building permission, the authorities shall take necessary action for

¶51

¶52

./..

¶53

demolition of the illegal structure. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of eight (0g) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶54

¶55

Accordingly, th is Contempt case is allowed to the extent

¶56

indicated above.

¶57

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed No costs.

¶58

\ \

¶59

¶60

Sd/. M. MANJULA DEPUW REGISTBAR //TRUE COPY// / t! ,.// bV SECTION OFFICER

¶61

To,

¶62

One CC to SRl.^{MAHMOOD ALI Advocate[OPUC]}

¶63

Two CCs to SRl.^{N. ARTHI, GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION} - uiieAN, Fligh Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad (oUT)

¶64

E.S.Yohan,^{S/o Paul, aged about 69 years, Pastor, lndia PentecostalChurch} - oi coJ Fettbwship S6ci5ty, FUo H.No'4-10-692/A, Siddartha colony, Shintninagar,^{DVK Road', NalgondaTownandDistrict'}

¶65

4.EsramVisranthamma,WoE.S.Yohan,agedabout35years.,.O-cc:Housewife' Ryo H.N0.4-10-692^{I A, Siddartha Colony, Shanthinagar, DVK Roao'} Nalgonda Town and^District.

¶66