C.V. Ramulu, J.@mdashThe Contempt Case and the Writ Petition are interconnected and as such they are being disposed of together.
Contempt Case No. 807 of 2000
2. This contempt case has been filed complaining wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 20-8-1998 passed in Writ Petition No. 23613 of 1998.
3. According to the petitioners, though the said order had become final the respondents had demolished the structures on the premises bearing Door No. 2-7-645 to 649, 650/1 and 650/2 on the Rashtrapathi Road, Nizamabad for the purpose of widening of the road on 31-5-2000, in spite of the fact that the orders of this Court were brought to the notice of the respondents by way of a Telegram, which was received by them on 30-5-2000 itself.
4. The premises in question was constructed in 1930s leaving sufficient set off for future widening of the road. The width of the Rashtrapathi Road was 60. The Director of Town Planning, Government of Andhra Pradesh had prepared a plan for organized development of Nizamabad town under the Andhra Pradesh Town Planning Act in R.P.No. 20/75 vide file No. 3798/75/A6/NZB, dated 6-3-1975, which was published in G.O.Rt.No. 341, MA, dated 6-3-1975. As per the Road Development Plan, the Rashtrapathi Road will be widened to a width of 80'' and the plan demarcates the contours of the road and buildings that are likely to be affected, if the road is widened to 80''. From the plain it is clear that the petitioners building will not be affected. They had expressed their willingness and no objection for widening of the road and requested the authorities to undertake the exercise in accordance with the approved plan. However, the 2nd petitioner was called to the Collector''s Office for giving consent for demolition of a portion of the building, which he refused to do so, as the approved plan did not affect his building at all and as the authorities were highhandedly proceeding with the demolition work, they filed Writ Petition No. 23618 of 1998 and obtained the orders. However, after the disposal of the Writ Petition, no further action was taken till the last week of May, 2000. In Writ Petition No. 22856 of 1998 filed by some other persons challenging the proposed demolitions on R.P. Road, Nizamabad, the 1st respondent herein filed a counter-affidavit stating that Road Development Plan No. 20/1975 is being scrupulously followed and only such buildings or encroachments on Government lands, which are required to be removed to widen the road as per the plan, are sought to be removed and in fact most of the shop owners and encroachers have removed the obstructions voluntarily, either fully or partly. In the last week of May, 2000, petitioner No. 1 was called to the Office of the 2nd respondent and was informed by the 2nd respondent himself that if the building is not demolished voluntarily, he would have no alternative, but to use force and demolish the building. Petitioner No. 1 informed the 2nd respondent that their building need not be demolished as it is not affected by the road development plan and requested the 2nd respondent to personally inspect the area to find out whether their building is required to be demolished, if the road is to be widened in accordance with the plan. Petitioner No. 1 also informed the 2nd respondent that even according to the road alignment, the building does not cause any obstruction and need not be demolished. Then the 2nd respondent got angry and said that the building will have to be demolished, as it was coming in the road widening programme. They informed the 2nd respondent that the demolition could take place only in accordance with road development plan, after giving a notice and acquisition of land through due process of law and they have show a copy of the order in Writ Petition No. 23613 of 1998 to which the 2nd respondent reacted more violently and stated that such orders cannot stop him from proceeding with road development work. Further, on consultation with the local Advocates as to the imminent threat of demolition and on their advice, they issued a Telegram on 30-5-2000 at 3.40 p.m. to all the respondents stating that no demolition could take place, since no notice of demolition or acquisition of property was served on them and that if demolition takes place, that would amount to contempt of court.
5. According to the 1st petitioner, he was called to the Office of the 2nd respondent on 31-5-2000 at 8.30 a.m. and he was directed by the 2nd respondent to give an undertaking to demolish the building immediately or else they will use force. He informed the 2nd respondent that even for the alignment of the drainage, the building need not be demolished. After two hours, officials from the office of the 2nd respondent headed by the 3rd respondent and assisted by the 4th respondent came to the spot and pointed from the front portion of the building and stated that the same has to be demolished. On enquiry so to the basis for such demolition, he was informed that it is the order of the 2nd respondent and they are complying with the same. At about 11.00 a.m., few more officials came with armed police and proclainer and started demolition work. Their protests did not stop them. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 joined the officials present at the spot after some time. They served a copy of the order of this court in Writ Petition No. 23613 of 1998 to them also. They said that such orders can be obtained by any one and they will face the consequences. Their younger brother gave a letter requesting the authorities to stop demolition and grant 3 to 4 hours time to remove the structures apprehending danger to the entire building and to save their sick mother, who was confined to bed. However, the respondents did not stop demolition work. Since the front portion of the building had become uninhabitable and was likely to collapse, he gave a letter on 1-6-2000 informing the 2nd respondent their intention to demolish the remaining front portion of the building. The action of respondents, particularly respondents 2 to 6 is highhanded, arbitrary, barbaric and deliberate act of disobedience of the orders of this Court. Respondent No. 2 has absolutely no regard and in fact has shown utmost disregard to this Court by his actions. The respondents deserve to be punished for the wilful and deliberate violation of the orders of this Court and they are liable to pay damages to him and his brothers for the loss caused to the building and mental agony undergone by them. He claimed damages of Rs. 20.00 lakhs without prejudice to his rights to claim compensation for the land and building.
6. Respondent No. 1 filed a detailed counter-affidavit stating inter alia that the Master Plan of Nizamabad was sanctioned vide G.O.Ms.No. 46, MA, dated 15-2-1974 and subsequently, the Director of Town and Country Planning has approved the Road Development Plan bearing No. 20/75, dated 12-8-1975 in respect of Rashtrapathi Road of Nizamabad town and also Junction Improvement Plan vide B.P.No. 218/99, dated 6-10-1999 for development of junction situated nearby the property in question to accommodate the heavy vehicular traffic on the said road. It is denied that there is sufficient set off for the building of the petitioners from the road margin on two sides of building i.e., R.P. Road and link road. A portion of the building of the petitioners is affected, as it was constructed without sufficient set back as per the above plans. It is further stated that the petitioners themselves admitted that they are willing and have no objection for widening the road. In fact, one of the petitioners attended the meeting conducted by the District Collector on 19-8-1998 and voluntarily agreed to remove the structures affected by road widening on their own without claiming any compensation. One of the petitioners met the 2nd respondent and requested him to co-operate in the formation of the drain as per the Junction Improvement Plan dated 6-10-1999 and agreed to engage labour and remove the portion of the building affected and accordingly he has taken up the removal of the portion of the building affected by the said Plan and also the debris. All the allegations made against the respondents are false, baseless and are only an afterthought to gain sympathy of the Court to get compensation. In fact, the petitioners themselves took up the work of demolition of the affected portion of the building as agreed upon by them earlier. On the request of the petitioners, the authorities had undertaken the exercise of widening of the road in accordance with the approved plan. The contention of the petitioners that if the approved plan was followed, their residential-cum-commercial complex would not have been affected at all is incorrect. The respondents followed the approved Master Plan for road widening. Almost all the affected persons, shop owners and encroachers have removed the obstructions voluntarily. Respondent No. 1 is always available for public and petitioners made no efforts to meet and represent to him, as they themselves volunteered to remove the part of the building affected by the said plans. The allegation that the respondents colluded together and demolished the building is false and unfounded. The respondents have not violated the orders of this court. The case of the petitioners can be considered for relaxation in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 15, MA, dated 15-1-1998 for the portion affected by Junction Improvement Plan. The impugned action of the respondents is bona fide and undertaken in the interest of providing better civic amenities to the public at large. The construction of drain is bona fide and undertaken as per Junction Improvement Plan subsequent to removal of the affected portion of the building by the petitioners in the interest of avoiding stagnation of water and providing better civic amenities to the public. The same cannot be said to be committed with a mala fide intention. There is no wilful violation or disobedience of the orders passed by this Court and the contempt case deserves to be dismissed.
7. Respondent No. 2 also filed a detailed counter-affidavit and denied the allegations made against him by the petitioners. While adopting the same stand as was taken by the 1st respondent, 2nd respondent sworn to some more details as to the incidents that had taken place on 30-5-2000, 31-5-2000 and 1-6-2000. He stated that the contention of the petitioner that the was called to his office at 8.30 a.m. on 31-5-2000 and was directed to give an undertaking to demolish the building immediately or otherwise, force would be used against him, is totally false and incorrect. The petitioners were not called to his office. He stated that he never sent any person from his office to the petitioners building nor he gave any order in connection with demolition. He further asserted that he was also not aware of respondents 3 to 6 having arrived at the spot on 31-5-2000 at 11.00 a.m. or subsequently. The officials of his office did not affect the demolition. In fact, petitioners came and met him in his Office on 1-6-2000 and gave a letter that they themselves would demolish the building and to provide police help for smooth traffic and to avoid any untoward incident. He also stated that he specifically told the petitioners that no demolition took place on 31-5-2000 by the departmental officials. Petitioners themselves removed the affected portion over a period of 15 days. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioners that the Departmental officials effected demolition of a portion of building on 31-5-2000 is totally incorrect and baseless. He also stated that the contention of the petitioners that the respondents had absolutely no regard and has shown utmost disrespect for this Court is incorrect and reckless. The contention of the petitioners that his utterances, when a copy of the order was shown to him, show that he had no regard for the rule of law and to the orders of this court, is totally incorrect and unfounded. All other allegations as to his conduct are also denied.
8. Respondents 3 to 6 have filed separate counter-affidavits almost adopting the same stand as was taken by respondents 1 and 2 and denied the allegations made against them personally.
9. Petitioners also filed an additional affidavit (reply) on 27-11-2001 stating that the respondents filed counters contending, inter alia, that the demolition of the building in question was voluntary and they have no role to play in the same. Further, Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General viewed the video cassette recording of the demolition that took place on 30-5-2000 and submitted a report, but copy of the same was not served on them. Thereafter, they received a communication dated 24-7-2001 from the 6th respondent wherein they were informed that to compensate the affected area, an open plot admeasuring 36'' x 51'' i.e., 204 square yards at the Commercial Tax Office, Station Road, Nizamabad was offered and they were asked to inform their willingness. However, they have not accepted the offer, since the respondents not only wilfully and deliberately violated the orders of this court, but also committed perjury by swearing to false affidavits stating that the petitioners themselves undertook the demolition. Respondent No. 6 once again vide letter dated 14-9-2001 reminded them as to the earlier offer and requested to inform their willingness at the earliest. Further, elderly citizens of Nizamabad town including people''s representatives tried to persuade them that pursuing the contempt not only affect the career of the respondents, they may not also get anything in return. Even if they succeed, the Government can initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of the land and demolition of the structures. Having been persuaded by the logic in the suggestions of the said persons, the 2nd petitioner sent a letter dated 28-9-2001 informing respondents 1 and 6 of their willingness to accept the proposal, if 800 sq. yards of land facing the Station Road is allotted to them free of cost. However, there was no response from the respondents so far. The above conduct of the respondents clearly establishes that the demolition of their building was undertaken by the respondents without their consent and the same was carried out highhandedly and in utter disregard to the orders of this court dated 2-8-1998. Respondents have uniformly sworn to false affidavits and committed acts of grave perjury amounting to interference with the course of justice and the same is unpardonable and unless they are punished, the majesty of law would suffer.
10. Respondents 1 to 4 and 6 have filed additional counter-affidavits praying for unconditional apology for the events that had happened in the case and seeking mercy of the Court.
11. Under these circumstances, the learned single Judge, after elaborate hearing of the matter prima facie felt that this is a case not only of wilful disobedience of the orders of this court, but also attracts the ingredients of criminal contempt and as such, referred the matter to the Division Bench as required u/s 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which reads as under:
"18 Hearing of cases of criminal contempt to be by Benches.--
(1) Every case of criminal contempt u/s 15 shall be heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges.
(2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to the Court of a Judicial Commissioner."
12. In view of the above legal position, this court heard the matter afresh in detail and also looked into the material available on record.
13. Now it has to be seen whether any contempt has been committed by the respondents as complained by the petitioners in utter wilful disobedience of the Orders of this court in W.P.No. 23613 of 1998, dated 20-8-1993 and there was any attempt made to scandalize and lower the authority of the court or interfered or obstructed the administration of justice in any manner.
14. Before we discuss the merits of the case, it may be necessary to notice the real purport of the order of this Court in W.P.No. 23613 of 1998 dated 20-8-1998 which reads as under:
"The grievance of the petitioners is that under the supervision of the first respondent the buildings of the petitioners constructed as early as in the year 1930 on their own land are sought to be demolished only for the purpose of widening of the road. The further grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are not following the approved Master Plan.
Heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
In the circumstances, I direct the respondents to follow the procedure as per law, which includes following of approved Master Plan and not to demolish the buildings of the petitioners except in accordance with law."
15. It is also necessary to excerpt the provisions of Sections 2 (b) and (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which read as under:
"(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;
(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which--
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner,"
16. At the outset, it may be noticed that the said Writ Petition was disposed of at the admission stage and an order was passed in the usual course in such matters and thus there was no opportunity for the respondents to contest the matter effectively. It is curious to note that the 2nd petitioner was a signatory to the Minutes of the meeting held on 19-8-1998 at 3.00 p.m. in Pragathi Bhavan, Nizamabad in connection with implementation of Master Plan and removal of unauthorized constructions in the Rashtrapathi Road, Nizamabad Town. Even the 2nd petitioner also refers to such a meeting, which took place on 19-8-1998 in the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition No. 23613 of 1998 and he was a signatory to the said resolution. But, on 20-8-1998 he rushed to this court and filed the Writ Petition No. 23613 of 1998 by way of lunch motion and the same was disposed of on the same day as stated above. Nowhere in the affidavit of this contempt case, the petitioners have stated that they have apprised the orders of this court to the respondents immediately and asserted before them that their property is not affected by the Master Plan and is not liable to be demolished as per the Master Plan read with Junction Improvement Plan. Thus, from 20-8-1998 till 30-5-2000 i.e., for about two years, they have not made any representations in view of the orders passed by this court and their property shall not be demolished since it was not affected by the Master Plan. Having kept quiet for so long a period, petitioners have sent telegram to the respondents only on 3-5-2000 when the demolition was sought to be taken up for widening of the road in view of the Master Plan of 1975 red with the minutes of the meeting held on 19-8-1998 to which the 2nd petitioner was a signatory and also subsequent development of the approval of the Junction Improvement Plan in 1999. Further, the petitioners themselves gave a letter on 1-6-2000, which reads as under:
R.P.Road
Nizamabad
The Hon''ble Dist. Joint Collector,
Nizamabad.
Respected Sir,
Sub:- Request to provide Police Bandobust during demolishing of our building bearing Municipal Nos. 2-7-645, 2-7-646, 2-7-647, 2-7-648, 2-7-649, 2-7-650/1 and 2-7-650/2 - Reg.
As per the above said subject sir, our building which called as Ramsarup Building was demolished yesterday i.e. on 31 -5-2000 by your department officials. We are demolishing remaining building to-day.
Hence, we request you to kindly provide police help to make convenience to traffic as well as to avoid any untoward incidents.
Your early action is highly solicited.
Thanking you.
Yours Sincerely,
Sd/-
Ghanshyamdas Agarwal."
17. From the above, it is clear that the petitioners themselves approached the 2nd respondent and sought for police bandobust during demolition of the building in question not to convenience the traffic as well as to avoid any untoward incident. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have taken up such a demolition for about 15 days and cleared everything as required by the respondents. But, they have not raised any objection in its stricter sense nor made any representation stating that in view of the orders passed by this Court their structures are not liable to be demolished. After demolishing the building coolly for about 15 days, the writ petitioners filed the present Contempt Case on 14-6-2000. Between 1-6-2000 and 14-6-2000 they have not made any representation or got issued any notice for contempt against the respondents.
18. It may be noticed that the Master Plan was prepared as early as in the year 1975 proposing widening of the existing R.P. Road to 80''. Further, proposal for the purpose of junction improvement was contemplated. On 19-8-1998 as many as 101 persons whose buildings are likely to be affected due to the widening of R.P. Road as per the Master Plan attended for negotiations and the following decision was taken to which the 2nd petitioner also agreed and signed the minutes.
"While initiating discussions, the Collector, Nizamabad has informed that the Government have issued orders for removal of encroachments and widening of roads should be taken up with the consultation of citizens living in the area through A/M dated 25-9-1997 issued by Chief Secretary to Government. In view of the increasing traffic/population passing through Rashtrapathi Road, Nizamabad, it is felt necessary to widen the R.P. Road (Railway Station to Gandhi Chowk). During the meeting, all the persons available have observed the same and requested to take up the road widening programme at Rashtrapathi Road, Nizamabad.
After having elaborate discussions and taking into consider all view points has been unanimously agreed that the R.P. Road should be widened atleast 80 feet where it is straight and in excess wherever curves are available. It has been requested by the shop owners to exempt setback area so as to enable them to construct the new shops while removing the debris by themselves voluntarily and they will not claim any compensation for losing their land and shops.
Therefore, it is decided to widen 80 feet road and excess whenever curves are available as per Master Plan/R.D. Plan and the steps/pavements to be left from the road margin, so as to construct footpaths and drains as per the specifications. (emphasis is ours)
The owners/tenants have voluntarily agreed to remove their encroachments for forming 80 feet road and excess wherever necessary as per Master Plan/R.D. Plan without claiming any compensation. It is also agreed to remove debris themselves so that the damage would not take place to the buildings, furniture, articles etc. They have requested to allow two days time for the same. Accordingly, two days time is allowed.
The Collector, Nizamabad has concluded the meeting and requested the owners to adhere to the decision taken without giving any further scope for initiating any action from the Government side."
19. A plain reading of the said minutes categorically shows that the understanding was to widen the road to 80'' and also in excess wherever the curves are available and further at least 3'' to 5'' have to be left from the road margin so as to construct footpaths and drains as per the specifications. This shows that as per the Master Plan of 1975, the existing structural position of the buildings on the road should be changed i.e., the road should be widened to 8'', wherever there are curves etc., to have little more demolition and 3'' to 5'' space also for the construction of footpaths and drains. The request of the shop owners to exempt set back was also considered. As per the minutes, the shop owners would remove the debris themselves voluntarily and they will not claim any compensation for losing their land and shops. For this, the 2nd petitioner was a party and signatory. Having agreed so on 19-8-1998 at 3.00 p.m. he immediately rushed to Hyderabad, sworn to the affidavit in Writ Petition No. 23613 of 1998 on the same day i.e., 19-8-1998 and on the next day i.e., 20-8-1998 filed the same into this court and obtained an order at the admission stage and thereafter did not make any representation till 30-5-2000 in this regard explaining as to how the demolition proposed by the respondents was not in accordance with the Master Plan and the same is contrary to the orders passed by this Court.
20. From the minutes, it is clear that as per the directions of the Chief Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh through his letter dated 25-9-1997 the meeting of the citizens was convened and they were explained the pros and cons of the road widening and requirements of some excess demolition wherever there are curves and for construction of footpaths and drains as per the specifications. Thus, in view of the consent given by the citizens as many as 101 in number, which includes the 2nd petitioner, it must be deemed that the demolition taken up on 31-5-2000 and 1-6-2000 was in accordance with the Master Plan. The Government may be right in asking to conduct such a meeting of the citizens in view of the fact that the Master Plan was prepared as early as in 1975 and there could be lot of variations in the structures that have come up on the road since then and the consent given by the petitioners clearly indicates that the Master Plan is implemented with the said modification. It may be necessary to note that the proposal for junction improvement was already completed and when the meeting took place on 19-8-1998 this was also explained and as such, such a decision was taken as to the footpaths and drains as per specifications. Thus, there is any amount of suspicion as to the way in which the petitioners have conducted themselves. They have participated in the meeting on 19-8-1998 and agreed for the demolition as per the minutes. But, on the next day i.e., 20-8-1998 rushed to this Court (by way of lunch motion) and obtained orders, which are general in nature. Having obtained the order on 20-8-1998, they have not made any representation till 30-5-2000 no; they have filed any contempt case immediately thereafter. They have coolly demolished the building themselves after giving letter on 1-6-2000 and filed the contempt case on 14-6-2000. It seems the petitioners have not misunderstood what they have consented for in the meeting held on 19-8-1998. It is only when the demolition was taken up on 30-5-2000 they woke up and tried to interpret that the action proposed by the respondents was not in accordance with the order passed by this Court. Further, in the letter dated 1-6-2000, the petitioners have never mentioned that their buildings were demolished forcibly or illegally. What all they requested was to provide police bandobust to avoid inconvenience to traffic and any untoward incide it. After coolly demolishing the building, they have approached this Court by way of this contempt case. This all shows that the petitioners are playing pressure tactics to get the compensation by frightening the respondents by filing this contempt, which is nothing but blowing the things disproportionately.
21. It may be necessary to remind ourselves that the summary power of punishing for contempt cannot be invoked in cases of a trivial nature. It is in the court''s discretion to take action or not. If the motion is at the instance of a private party, it is left to the court to adjudge, if action was at all called for. There is no scope for private parties to wreak their vengeance through this action. When the incident is trivial, the court will refuse to take any notice of it. Only when the dignity of the court is offended and it is lowered in the estimation of the public, action is called for. Latitude has to be given to the counsel to plead their cases and if in doing so, they depart from a strict code of decorum, the court will refuse to take action unless the act of counsel borders on gross contempt. The determining factor is not the harm done to the individual, but the harm done to the future administration of justice. But frivolous applications against public officers charging them with disobedience of court''s orders, motivated by a desire to harass them is clearly an abuse of process.
22. It is further to be seen that in the case of breach of an order of a court by an official, normally a presumption is drawn in his favour that he had committed infringement of the order unintentionally. If, on the other hand, there are circumstances showing that the official had not acted bona fide, it would then be appropriate to regard the action as wilful. In judging the conduct of alleged contemnor, it will also have to be borne in mind that the contempt proceedings are of a quasi-criminal nature and therefore, wherever, there is a reasonable doubt, the person charged with contempt, is entitled to the benefit of this doubt. Moreover, a wilful default is punishable and not merely negligence or unintentional mistake. Where a party has knowledge of an order, whether prohibitory or mandatory, if he so conducts himself as to intentionally defeat or stultify that order, it may be held to be contempt. Before a Government servant can be convicted of contempt of court it has to be proved that the impugned disobedience was deliberate, wilful and/or mischievous. Casual carelessness or negligent disobedience would not amount to defiance of the order of the court.
23. In the instant case, the conduct of the petitioners, particularly, submitting the letter dated 1-6-2000 and demolishing the building coolly for more than a week and approaching this court thereafter clearly shows that they are playing hide and seek and wants to take advantage of an order, which was made in the usual course in such matters. Probably such an order could not have been passed had an opportunity given to the respondents explaining the Master Plan and the purport of the minutes dated 19-8-1998 etc. Even if anything is attributable to the respondents, the same is trivial and negligible and this court while exercising its powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1976 cannot take those things into cognizance as discussed above.
24. We have also looked into the report submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, who had viewed the video tape showing the demolition of the building abutting the R.P. Road, Nizamabad. The said report reads as under:
"The Video tape shows the demolition operation of buildings abutting the road by using proclain and also manually, for road widening purpose. According to the news bulletin of the local channel, the road widening programme was under the supervision of Sri Veeramallu, Revenue Divisional Officer, Sri Chandramouli, Deputy Superintendent of Police, R and B Officials and S.Is. of Police and other police personnel. Video tape shows that road widening programme was carried out on three different dates i.e., 31-5-2000, 1-6-2000 and 2-6-2000. This video recording was shown in the news of local channel called ''Popular Channel'' along with other items."
25. The above report only indicates that proclainer was used for demolition of the structures under the supervision of the revenue officials and police officials. That itself does not mean that there was any contempt committed by the respondents. My be, the revenue officials and also the police officials were also present when the demolition was going on, which is not unnatural. On the other hand, they are supposed to be present and supervise the demolition, which is going on the main road to avoid traffic jam and any untoward incident.
26. The contention of the petitioners that the note files prepared by the Municipal Commissioner, Nizamabad read with other letter dated 24-7-2001 categorically show that the demolition had been done by the Government and from the fact that the alternative site of 204 square yards was offered to the petitioner is a conclusive proof that the respondents have deliberately and wilfully violated the orders of this court and they have sworn the affidavit after affidavit which are found to be false and alter they are seeking apology; as such, it amounts to misleading the court and further, it is not only wilful disobedience attracting ''civil contempt'' but also attracts the essence of the ''criminal contempt'' and as such, they are liable to be punished, cannot be accepted for the reasons recorded by us above. The note file endorsements made in the files of the Government and the offer made by the respondents to the petitioners may indicate some sort of fear psychosis of the respondents, but that itself does not mean that it is a conclusive proof that they have committed an act, which is punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
27. The contention of the petitioners that they should be suitably compensated for the misdeeds of the respondents and for the mental agony suffered by them although, has no substance in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the conduct of the respondents after filing of the contempt case should be taken into consideration, since they have come forward to compromise the matter by allotting 204 square yards of land in the Commercial Tax Officer complex at Nizamabad. In fact, there were interdepartmental meetings held in this regard and therefore, the respondents are guilty of contempt of court. May be, the respondents have also behaved in a little funny way apprehending contempt proceedings. All these things cannot be gone into, since such things are sometimes not unusual between the parties. This Court is concerned only with the orders of this court and whether the same have been complied with. If not complied with, whether there was any wilful disobedience. We are of the considered opinion that the Master Plan of 1975 has to be seen and read along with Minutes of the meeting held on 19-8-1998 and the proposals of road widening as to the drains specifications etc., which were approved, of course, in the year 1999. There is no reason to hold the respondents guilty of contempt of the orders of this court dated 20-8-1998 in Writ Petition No. 23613 of 1998. The order of this court simply says that the respondents to follow the procedure as per law, which includes the following up of the Draft Master Plan and not to demolish the building of the petitioners except in accordance with law. In its strict sense, the respondents have followed the procedure of law, which includes negotiations of the meeting held on 19-8-1998. The Master Plan approved should be deemed that it is as per the understanding of the meeting dt. 19-8-1998. Thus, the respondents have proposed to demolish the building in accordance with law. Even otherwise, looking from any angle, it cannot be said that the demolition taken up by the department and/or the petitioners themselves is wanton and wilful, since about 100 people have signed the minutes and the buildings on either side of the road were demolished and it was admittedly in the larger public interest. In such circumstances, any lapse on the part of the respondents cannot be taken seriously and the same cannot be said to be either wilful or wanton or in any way scandalizes or undermines the authority of the court interfering with the orders passed by it. Thus, neither any ground for civil contempt nor criminal contempt is made out by the petitioners against the respondents. The contempt case is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
28. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed and notices are discharged. No order as to costs.
29. However, we may hasten to add that the petitioners are at liberty to accept the offer made on 24-7-2001 and the respondents may consider the same without any loss of time.
Writ Petition No. 11651 of 2000
30. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to dig a drainage canal in the land owned and possessed by the petitioners forming part of Door Nos. 2-7-645, 2-7-646, 2-7-647, 2-7-648, 2-7-649, 2-7-650/1 and 2-7-650/2 situated at Rastrapathi Road, Nizamabad as arbitrary and illegal. In view of the conclusions reached by us in the above contempt case and also because of the fact that now there is an approved Junction Improvement Plan available, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
31. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
