DEVENDRA Vs. COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Contempt Application has been filed for punishing the respondents for non-compliance and willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 3-8-2000 in W. A. No. 1171 of 2000, despite the receipt of the order. The parties to the contempt application arc same as in the writ appeal.

(2.) To substantiate, the applicant has filed a detailed affidavit stating that the fifth respondent has not been making the construction as per the approved plan and rules. He also states that in W.P. No.10965 of 2000 filed by the appellant on 30-6-2000, a learned single Judge of this Court granted an interim injunction for a period of four weeks restraining the 5th respondent from constructing any further. The order was vacated by another learned single Judge on 7-7-2000 on lunch motion as it was pleaded by the fifth respondent that on 6-7-2000, a stop work notice was issued by the second respondent, in response to which, a rely was sent along with the plan on 7-7-2000. On appeal by the applicant herein against the interim order, it was argued that the fifth respondent was not making construction as per the approved plan and rules and if such construction was permitted to be continued, at a later stage, he would seek ratification and therefore, he should not be permitted to continue the construction and the construction should be stopped. To this, the fifth respondent submitted was as per the approved plan. The second respondent submitted that at the time of inspection the plan was not available and stop work notice was issued on 6-7-2000 and they were going to issue a notice as contemplated under Section 256(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act for alteration of the building. This Court, while considering arguments of the parties, in the interest of justice, allowed the fifth respondent to make construction as per the approved plan, however made it clear that the fifth respondent should not take advantage of the order of this Court for construction in variation of the approved plan or rules and could not seek ratification for the same in the instant cases. This Court further directed the fifth respondent to furnish an undertaking that if any construction was found in variation or violation against the sanctioned plan, the fifth respondent would demolish the same on his own. This court also made it clear that the second respondent was free to take any action for violation against the fifth respondent and the pendency of the writ petition would not debar it. The applicant submitted that no such undertaking was filed as per the order of this Court dated 3-8-2000 on 4-8-2000 and the undertaking alleged to have been filed on 4-8-2000 was false. The order of this Court had not been complied with. It was also alleged that the fifth respondent was hurriedly constructing the building not as per plan without furnishing the required undertaking. It was also alleged that Member Secretary of the C. M. D.A. had stated in his letter dated 28-8-2000 that the fifth respondent had not furnished any undertaking as ordered by this Court till 28-8-2000 besides stating that the second respondent noticed that the fifth respondent was going on with the construction and that was verified by site inspection on 21-8-2000. It was also stated that the C.M.D.A. admitted before this court that there was deviation in the construction by the fifth respondent and the second respondent issued a caution notice in Dinathanthi dated 26-8-2000 in which item No.30 related to the construction of the fifth respondent stating that the basement, ground floor and two floors were being constructed in violation of the Building Rules. He relied on the decisions in Mohd. Idris case (1984) 4 SCC 216): (1985 Cri LJ 353) and Skipper Construction case (1996 4 SCC 622): (AIR 1996 SC 2005). The applicant stated that till the moment of filing this application, the fifth respondent had been proceeding with the construction in flagrant violation of the orders of this Court and if such practice was encouraged, then every building promoter would jolly well construct the building in violation of the Building Rules. Therefore, the respondents had committed contempt of Court and were liable to be punished for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court. Hence, this Contempt Application came to be filed on 5-9-2000.

(3.) When this application came for admission on 15-9-2000, Mr. S. Chandrasekaran took notice for the fifth respondent. In Sub Application No.332 of 2000, parties were directed to maintain status quo as on that date. Thereafter, it was submitted that the respondent was not making any construction and status quo was directed to be continued until further orders on 13-10-2000.