DHONDU HANMANT RESHIM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Contempt Petition has been filed by Dhondu Hanmant Reshim praying therein that the contemnors may be held guilty of civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilfully, knowingly and intentionally flouting and disobeying the order/ direction passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division dated 9-8-1995. According to the petitioner, the Additional Commissioner directed the respondents for providing alternative commercial premises within the limits of Greater Bombay within one month from the date of the order dated 9-8-1995.

(2.) THE petitioner states that he and other 39 occupiers received notices from the office of Collector, Andheri on 18-4-95 purporting to be under section 50 (3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, calling upon them to remove the zopadpatti and vacate the Government land within seven days from the receipt of the notices failing which the zopadpatti placed by the petitioner and others would be removed. The aforesaid notices received by the petitioner and others were challenged in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Bombay and on 9-8-1995 the Additional Commissioner directed the State of Maharashtra and its functionaries to allot alternative commercial premises to petitioner and such other persons within the limits of Greater Bombay within one month. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the direction given by the Additional Commissioner in the order dated 9-8-1995 the respondents did not provide the alternative commercial premises to them. The said act of the respondents was deliberate and intentional and, therefore, amounted to civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971.

(3.) AN affidavit in reply has been filed by the contemnor No. 3 who is Additional Collector, Slum Redevelopment Authority, and he has, inter alia, set up a defence that the contempt petition was not tenable because the Additional Commissioner who has passed the order on 9-8-1995 is not a Court as contemplated under the Contempt of Courts Act and the non-compliance of said order passed by the Additional Commissioner cannot be construed to be disobedience of the judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court. The legal plea is that the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, is neither a Court as contemplated under section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act nor a Court subordinate to the High Court under section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act.