This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for wilfull disobedience of the order of this Court, dated 30.12.2003, made in W.P.M.P.No.46703 of 2003, in W.P.No.38476 of 2003.
2. The petitioner has stated that he is residing at No.732, Brough Road, Erode. The first respondent, who is his neighbour, had purchased a plot having an extent of 2,500 sq.ft., of vacant land, at No.711 Brough Road, (Vasuki Street), Erode. After purchasing the vacant land, the first respondent started putting up a massive structure in the said land for commercial purposes. Even though he had applied and got approval from the second and third respondents in the writ petition for constructing a building with ground plus first floors, for residential purpose, vide Roc.No.F2/23329/01, dated 5.12.2001, the construction has been done without leaving open spaces, which are mandatory under the relevant building rules. The petitioner had also made a representation to the District Collector, Erode, on 19.11.2003, narrating all the facts.
3. The petitioner had further stated that since no action was taken by the authorities concerned, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.38476 of 2003, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the fourth respondent therein, for his unauthorised construction at Door Nos.710-713, Brough Road, (Vasuki Street), Erode, and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to demolish the unauthorised construction made by the fourth respondent. This Court, by an order, dated 30.12.2003, made in W.P.M.P.No.46703 of 2003, in W.P.No.38476 of 2003, granted an order of interim injunction, as prayed for by the petitioner, restraining the first respondent and his men from, in any manner, constructing the building at Door Nos.710-713, Brough Road, (Vasuki Street), Erode, pending disposal of the Writ petition in W.P.No.38476 of 2003.
4. The said order was communicated to the respondents 1 and 2, on 31.12.2003, by way of a telegram. It was also informed that the contempt proceedings would be initiated, if the order is not obeyed by the said respondents. On 6.1.2004, a copy of the order had been served on the respondent and it was also sent to him by registered post, with acknowledgment due. Though the first respondent had sufficient knowledge of the order passed by this Court, he had not stopped the construction activities. In fact, he had continued to construct the non- residential building at a faster pace. Thus, the first respondent had committed contempt of Court by wilfully disobeying the order of this Court, dated 30.12.2003, made in W.P.M.P.No.46703 of 2003, in W.P.No.38476 of 2003.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, the averments and allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition had been denied.
6. It has been stated that the first respondent had purchased an extent of 2,575 sq.ft. of land, with a small tiled house in Door Nos.710 to 713, in Brough Road, Erode, in the year 1998. Thereafter, the first respondent had applied to the Erode Municipality seeking permission for demolishing the tiled house and for constructing a new building therein. He had also submitted a plan for the construction of a building, with semi basement meant for parking, with ground and first floors. The Erode Municipality had duly approved the plan and had granted permission for the construction of the building, by its order, dated 5.12.2001.
7. It has also been stated that the first respondent's daughter is a Gynecologist and his son-in-law is a Cardiologist and they are practicing together. Therefore, the first respondent had decided to construct a Hospital for them to carry on their practice. With a view to provide better medical facilities to the general public, the first respondent had constructed two additional floors, for which he had submitted a revised plan to the Erode Municipality. The Municipality was in the process of forwarding the revised plan submitted by the first respondent to the Director of Town and Country Planning for granting the necessary exemption.
8. It has been further stated that the Erode Municipality had assessed the building for property tax in the year 2002-2003, on 28.3.2003, for all the three floors and the first respondent had also paid the property tax, on 20.3.2003. The property tax had also been paid for the current period. While so, the Erode Municipality had issued a notice to the first respondent, under Section 205, read with Section 317 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, for violation of the building rules and a criminal prosecution had also been launched against the first respondent, in STF No.1294/2003. The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Erode, had imposed a fine of Rs.500/-, on 6.10.2003, for the violation committed by the first respondent.
9. The petitioner in the present contempt petition had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.38476 of 2003, and had obtained an order of interim injunction by an order, dated 30.12.2003, long after the completion of the building in question. Except the flooring in certain areas and other finishing works on the basement and the ramps of the building, all other activities relating to the construction works, including plastering and polishing, had been stopped.
10. It has also been stated that the first respondent had not proceeded with any construction, after having the knowledge of the interim order passed by this Court, on 30.12.2003.
11. It has also been stated that the allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition are vague and non specific regarding the nature and manner of construction, alleged to have been done by the first respondent. The contempt petition has been filed with a mala fide motive, as the petitioner had failed in his attempt to purchase the property in question, which belongs to the first respondent. Further, the petitioner's wife is also a Gynecologist having a Hospital close to the building constructed by the first respondent.
12. It has also been stated that the first respondent had not committed any contempt of Court, as there is no wilfull disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 30.12.2003, in W.P.M.P.No.46703 of 2003 in W.P.No.38476 of 2003. However, the first respondent tenders his unconditional apology, if this Court, for some reason, finds that he had committed contempt of Court. In such circumstances, this Court may be pleased to dismiss the contempt petition, as devoid of merits.
13. Mr.R.Gandhi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had vehemently contended that the first respondent had wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court, dated 30.12.2003, in W.P.M.P.No.46703 of 2003 in W.P.No.38476 of 2003. Thus, the first respondent had committed contempt of Court, for which he should be punished, as per the provisions of the contempt of Court Act, 1971. He had also submitted that in spite of knowing the nature of the order, dated 30.12.2003, as noted from his counter affidavit, wherein he had stated that he had totally stopped all the construction works, which includes plastering and polishing, after he had received the information about the interim order passed by this Court.
14. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had also stated that an Advocate Commissioner had been appointed by this Court, by its order, dated 25.2.2004, to visit the property in question, with the Assistance of a qualified and experienced construction Engineer, to find out the age of the building as on the date of the order, to note down the physical features of the property and to ascertain the period during which the construction had been undertaken and completed. Pursuant to the said order, the Advocate Commissioner had submitted a report, dated 2.3.2004, noting the physical features of the building in question as it was on the date of the inspection. Further, evidence had also been recorded.
15. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had also submitted that since the first respondent had carried on the activity of constructing the building, in spite of the injunction order passed by this Court, on 30.12.2003, and completed the same, the Advocate Commissioner had been sent, once again, to visit the premises bearing Door Nos.710-713, Brough Road, (Vasuki Street), Erode, on 14.12.2007, to ascertain the status of the building thereafter. The Advocate Commissioner had filed a report, dated 18.12.2007, describing the status of the building, as on the date of her inspection.
16. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had also submitted that, from the reports of the Advocate Commissioner, dated 2.3.2004, and 18.12.2007, it is amply clear that the first respondent had carried on and completed the construction on the building in total violation of the order of injunction passed by this Court, on 30.12.2003. As such, the first respondent had committed contempt of Court by his wilfull disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 30.12.2003, in W.P.M.P.No.46703 of 2003, in W.P.No.38476 of 2003. Therefore, he is liable to be punished in accordance with the provisions of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
17. Per contra, Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent had submitted that even though the first respondent had not committed contempt of Court by wilfully disobeying the order of this Court, dated 30.12.2003, in W.P.M.P.No.46703 of 2003, in W.P.No.38476 of 2003, as alleged by the petitioner, he has tendered an unconditional apology, if this Court, for some reason, finds that he had committed contempt of Court.
18. It has been further stated that no construction activity had been carried on in respect of the structure of the building in question after the order of interim injunction had been passed by this Court, on 30.12.2003. If at all, certain minor activities, like, some finishing touches might have taken place without, in any way, intending to disobey the order of injunction passed by this Court, on 30.12.2003. Even from the reports filed by the Advocate Commissioner, it cannot be found that structural construction had taken place, subsequent to the order passed by this Court, on 30.12.2003.
19. The learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent had also submitted that it would have been proper for the first respondent to have obtained a clarification from this Court as to whether he could complete the activities in the building, like, plastering of certain portions of the wall, closing of the sump, polishing of the floors and doing up the place with the necessary furnishings and equipments to make it fit enough for the running of the Hospital. If the first respondent had known that such activities would also be covered by the order of interim injunction passed by this Court, on 30.12.2003, he would have definitely stopped even such activities. However, there is no mala fide intention or ulterior motive in carrying on such activities. The first respondent had never intended to wilfully disobey the order passed by this Court, on 30.12.2003.
20. The learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent had also reiterated the stand of the first respondent that he tenders his unconditional apology for his unintended negligent behaviour. Further, it had also been submitted that the first respondent would undertake to abide by any order passed by this Court and that he has got the highest regard and respect towards the judiciary and its orders.
21. In view of the submissions made by the learned senior counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents had not committed contempt of Court, as alleged by the petitioner. The first respondent had shown his bonafides by admitting that certain activities had been carried on, in respect of the building in question and that he had never intended to wilfully disobey the order passed by this Court. Further, he had also tendered his unconditional apology, for his negligent acts, which had been done without any intention of showing disrespect to this Court. As such, it cannot be held that the respondents had committed contempt of Court, as alleged by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the contempt petition stands dismissed. No costs.