E S Yohan vs Indian Pentecostal Church Of God
2023 Latest Caselaw 3297 Tel

    THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                               AND

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

              CONTEMPT APPEAL No.8 of 2023

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


      Ms. N.Aarti, learned counsel for the appellants.


      2.    This contempt appeal under Section 19 of the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (briefly referred to hereinafter

as 'the Act') has been filed against an order dated 13.03.2023

passed by learned Single Judge in C.C.No.1174 of 2020, by

which the petition filed by the respondent under Section 10

read with Section 12 of the Act has been allowed.


      3.    Facts

giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that respondent had filed a writ petition namely

W.P.No15985 of 2020, by which the validity of the gift deed

dated 06.08.2014 bearing Document No.7057 of 2014 was

under challenge. In the said writ petition, a Bench of this

Court passed an interim order on 30.11.2020 directing the

appellants either from making any constructions or alienating ::2::

suit schedule property until further orders of the Court.

Subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed on 13.03.2023

with the liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the

competent civil court.

4. Thereupon the writ petitioner filed a petition under

Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Act for violation of

interim order dated 30.11.2020 on the ground that despite

the aforesaid interim order, the appellants have carried out

the construction work. The learned Single Judge after

hearing the parties by an order dated 13.03.2023 has allowed

the contempt petition with the direction to the municipal

authorities to verify whether any building permission has

been obtained by the appellants herein before making

construction and if on verification of the same, it is found that

construction was made without obtaining any building

permission, the authorities shall take necessary action for

demolition of illegal construction. The authorities have been

directed to complete the exercise within a period of eight

weeks. With the aforesaid factual background, this appeal

has been filed.

::3::

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

appellants are senior citizens and once the writ petition

namely W.P.No.15985 of 2020 was dismissed on 13.03.2023,

no action for violation of the interim order dated 30.11.2020

passed in the writ petition could have been initiated by the

learned Single Judge.

6. We have considered the submission made by

learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the

record.

7. Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts

Act, 1971 reads as under:

"10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts.-

Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself:

Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

::4::

8. In Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber

Industries Pvt. Ltd. 1, it has been held that interim orders

which have already been issued does not become nonest

merely because the writ petition is dismissed. Therefore, the

contention that after dismissal of the writ petition, the

proceeding under Sections 10 and 12 of the Act could not

have been entertained is misconceived and the same is

therefore repelled.

9. It is pertinent to note that an appeal under Section

19 of the Act lies against an order or decision of the Court in

exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for the contempt. In the

instant case, no punishment has been imposed on the

appellants, but contempt petition has been allowed with the

following directions:

"10. Though under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the respondents are liable for punishment including imprisonment for the willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court dated 30.11.2020, having regard to the ages of the respondents, this Court is not inclined to impose the punishment of imprisonment on the respondents.

However, the respondents cannot be let off scot-free for their illegal actions and omissions committed by them deliberately in violation of the order of this Court dated 30.11.2020. The

1 (1997) 3 SCC 443 ::5::

respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong doing and benefit from the same. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the structure constructed in deliberate and willful violation of the order of this Court has to be demolished. Moreover, this Court has ample power under Rule 27 of the Contempt of Court Rules to direct the municipal authorities to verify if any building permission has been obtained by respondents before making construction and on verification if it is found that the construction was made without obtaining any building permission, the authorities shall take necessary action for demolition of the illegal structure. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

10. Even otherwise, no interference is called for in

exercise of powers under Section 19 of the Act.

11. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The same

fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

_______________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 18.10.2023 KL