(1.) The Petitioners were seeking initiation of the contempt of proceedings against the Respondents for having wilfully disobeyed the Order dated 19th October 2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition no.747 of 2014 and pressing for their punishment thereunder.
(2.) Ms. P. Kamat, learned Advocate for the Respondent no.2 raised preliminary objections and submitted that the Contempt Petition was not maintainable against the Respondent no.2 as he was not a party to the original Petition. The statement/undertaking was given by the Respondent no.1 who was since deceased. There were no allegations against the Respondent nos.2 and 3 in the Petition. The Suit was pending and the Petitioner could agitate his remedy in the said proceedings. The application was therefore liable for dismissal.
(3.) Shri J. Godinho, learned Advocate for the Respondent no.1 since deceased, submitted that as per the inspection carried out, the plot under reference was accessible by an existing six metre road and the work of the structure approved by the office was under progress. Besides, a three metre road access was available at the site towards the eastern side of the plot as shown by the Applicant and the complainant and at the site the rear setback maintained was less than permissible. It was further his contention that the Trial Court was seized of the matter and therefore the present proceedings were not maintainable.