Bombay High Court
Raheja Acropolis Ii Adnois Augustus ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And 5 Ors on 19 August, 2024
Author: M.S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2024:BHC-OS:12677-DB
25-conpw-114-2014 in oswp-1975-2011.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 114 OF 2014
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1975 OF 2011
Raheja Acropolis II Adnois Augustus CHSL ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
None, for the Petitioner.
Ms Meena Dhuri, i/b Sunil Sonawane, for the Respondent.
Ms Uma Palsuledesai, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM M.S. Sonak &
Kamal Khata, JJ.
DATED: 19th August 2024
PC:-
1. The Registry has not been able to trace the case papers.
However, with the copies supplied by the learned AGP, we have
considered this matter.
2. None for the Petitioner.
Digitally
SUMEDH
SUMEDH NAMDEO 19th August 2024
NAMDEO SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2024.08.20
Sumedh
17:12:01
+0530
25-conpw-114-2014 in oswp-1975-2011.doc
3. Ms Palsuledesai learned AGP appears for the State, and Ms
Dhuri appears for the BMC. The Petitioner has alleged contempt
of our order dated 28 February 2012.
4. The operative portion of our judgment and order in
paragraph 18 reads as follows:-
"18. In view of what is stated above, we do not find
any substance in the submission of the petitioners that
in the plot which is reserved for public amenity,
permission for constructing Police Station could not
have been granted even for temporary use. As we have
already discussed above, even as per the affidavit filed
by the Police Department, it is clear that the
construction is removable and even as per permission
granted by the Commissioner, the construction is
required to be removed on the basis of permission
granted by the Corporation. The Commissioner of the
Corporation to act accordingly and see that the
temporary construction is permitted for a temporary
period as per D.C. Regulation and the Police
Department shall also abide by the same condition and
in case the permission is not extended in future, they
shall abide by the undertaking which is to be given by
them to the authorities. If the undertaking is not given
so far, respondent No.5 may give appropriate
undertaking to the Corporation within a period of two
months from today."
5. Ms Dhuri learned counsel for the BMC places on record an
order dated 18 January 2018 by which the permission granted
to the police department to erect the chowky was extended. Ms
19th August 2024
Sumedh
25-conpw-114-2014 in oswp-1975-2011.doc
Dhuri submitted that, in fact, a long lease of 30 years has been
given to the police department commencing from 23/11/2017.
6. Considering the above position, which the Petitioners do
not dispute, we do not deem initiating any action under the
Contempt of Courts Act is appropriate.
7. If the Petitioners have any grievance about BMC's action,
they are at liberty to challenge it in accordance with the law.
However, we do not think that any case has been made to
initiate any action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
8. Accordingly, we dispose of this Contempt Petition.
(Kamal Khata, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
19th August 2024
Sumedh
