SUO MOTU Vs. G R KHAIRNAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Contempt Petition emanates from the reference made by the Judge of the City Civil Court under order dated 16th December 1993 and 17th December 1993 in S.C.Suit No.1535 of 1993. The said order came to be passed in the following backdrop.

(2.) One Prakash J.Shetty filed Suit against the Corporation, in which, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner and Senior Ward Officer were made Defendants along with the Corporation being L.C.Suit No.1535 of 1992 for the following reliefs:

(3.) The case of the said Plaintiff as mentioned in the Plaint was that he had purchased commercial premises which is known as Hotel Maitri situated at Dr.Choithram Gidwani Road, P-130, Chembur, Mumbai -400 074. The said premises originally belonged to the Government, which was purchased by the Plaintiff from the President of India through Managing Officer, Bombay and BSD for consideration under Deed of Conveyance dated 5th April 1991. It is stated by the Plaintiff that though the premises belonged to the Government, the same was in possession of M/s.Mariwala Bhatia Co-op. Consumers Society Ltd. since 1947, which was used for commercial purposes. The said Society under Agreement dated 5th July 1974, allowed one Haresh L.Shetty to use the premises for commercial purpose on certain terms and conditions incorporated in the Agreement. Subsequently, the Plaintiff purchased the premises as aforesaid and the same is presently used for hotel business conducted in the name and style of Hotel Maitri. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Officials of the Corporation facilitated construction of unauthorised kachcha (temporary) shop structures, put up by Defendants 4 to 9. Those structures were allowed to be erected right in front of the Plaintiff's business premises. As a result, the frontage of the Plaintiff's hotel was completely blocked. It is stated that the Officials of the Corporation connived with the said Defendants to erect unauthorised and illegal structures opposite the suit premises and that was done in violation of provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is the case of the Plaintiff that inspite of representation made to Defendant No.4, Senior Ward Officer in this behalf, no corrective measures were taken by the said Officer. It is specifically asserted by the Plaintiff in the Plaint that he entertained constant apprehension that the Officials of the Corporation may issue permission to the occupiers of the unauthorised structures for constructing pakka (permanent) structure by raising unreasonable height thereof, which would affect the frontage of the Plaintiff's hotel. For that purpose, notice was sent by the Plaintiff to the concerned Officials. Since the Plaintiff was not satisfied on account of the inaction of the Officials and had reason to believe that the Officials of the Corporation were bent upon granting fresh permissions to the occupiers of the unauthorised temporary structures, immediately after the Corporation election was to be concluded, approached the City Civil Court for the reliefs already referred to earlier. It is not necessary to elaborate further on the averments in the Plaint.