THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.945 of 2014 DATED:18.11.2014 Between:
P. Ramana Reddy, Karimnagar.
… Petitioner And K. Ramesh (The then Commissioner), Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Karimnagar, Karimnagar and another.
….Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.945 of 2014 Order: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This Contempt Case has been filed alleging deliberate violation of the order dated 30.12.2013 of this Court by the contemnors each of them willfully. Even it is carried out, it is not within the time.
A notice was issued and both the alleged contemnors have filed their respective affidavits.
It appears from the record that the order in respect of which the contempt case has been filed was served on 04.03.2014 upon the second respondent, who was the Commissioner and the receipt of the copy of this order is admitted.
We set out the relevant portion of the order as follows:
“We therefore direct the respondent not to use or allot any portion of the park for any purpose other than the use for children park, as it was established initially and the portion, which is being used for other purpose i.e., community hall, shall be removed and restored back to the main area of the park. Accordingly, the walls and structures erected must be demolished and restricted to bring its original fold.
It is stated in the counter affidavit that the playing infrastructure for children was already provided in the open space around the structure and it is proposed for the indoor games and children recreation after completion of the building work. We therefore direct the respondent to complete the said building work so that the children can use it for indoor games. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order.”
Thus, it is clear that within one month from 04.03.2014, the entire order should have been carried out. There are two parts of the order. One is for demolition, and another is for construction.
As far as demolition portion is concerned, both the alleged contemnors have stated that they have demolished the community hall by 31.10.2014, which is beyond one month stipulated in the order.
So far as the second portion of the order, namely, construction portion, it is stated that they have initiated the process and proposal was submitted to the Council for sanction of the amount for construction. However, no documents have been annexed to this affidavit nor any time has been given when it was done. No explanation is forthcoming why this delayed action so far as demolition is concerned.
Learned counsel for the alleged contemnors submits that because there was bifurcation of the State and also other disturbances created by the local people, the order could not be carried out. The last portion of the submission made by the learned counsel does not find place in the affidavit.
As far as the plea of bifurcation of the State is concerned, it appears that the order was communicated on 04.03.2014 and the order should have been carried out by 05.04.2014. The bifurcation took place on 02.06.2014. Therefore, this plea of bifurcation is absolutely an after thought and to put forward unacceptable justification.
So far as the second respondent, it is stated that he joined his office on 06.08.2014 and he was not aware of the order of the Court. Even from 06.08.2014, he could have carried out the order by 07.09.2014. He failed to do so. He allowed the time to be wasted and thereby compelled the petitioner to file another proceedings for implementation of the above order.
Had there been genuine reasons for not carrying out the Court’s order within time, the alleged contemnors would have approached the Court with an application for extension of time. But they did not do so.
In these circumstances, we are of the view that the alleged contemnors and each of them have violated the order of the Court by not carrying out the order within time stipulated deliberately. Since a portion of the order has been carried out, though belatedly, we are taking a lenient view of the matter and give a warning to both the contemnors that in future they must be very careful. This warning is to be incorporated in their Service Record and taken note by the Superior authority for flouting the order of this Court. Each of the contemnors shall pay costs of Rs.4,000/-, which amount shall be paid by the contemnors from out of their own salary, within a fortnight from the date of communication of a copy this order, and this shall not be borne by the Municipal Corporation. It is recorded that the remaining portion of the order is still left to be carried out, but no document is submitted before this Court to prove the same. Liberty is given to the petitioner to file a fresh contempt application if occasion so arises.
The Contempt Case is accordingly disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand closed.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J Date: 18.11.2014 va