BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP AND ANR. versus THE MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF PUNE AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 252 · Decided: 07-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP AND ANR. 
r-
v. 
THE MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF PUNE AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 7, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court Act, 1971: 
Contempt-Violation of Injunction orde!"-Developer proceeding with 
c construction of building-Contempt proceedings-High Cowt closing con-
tempt proceedings-Builder being co-nominee party bound by the Injunction 
order which remains in force-Hence no construction can be made contrary 
_,... 
to . the directions contained therein-Certain prima facie opinion of High 
Court-Held : Not warranted in the Contempt proceedings. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3450 of 
1996 . 
.Prom the Judgruent and Order dated 26.12.95 of the Bombay High 
Court in C. Application no. 7125/95 in W.P. No. 923 of 1992. 
E 
Gopal Subramaniam, M. Doctor, Ms. Shruti Pandey and Ms. Indu 
Malhotra, for the Appellants. 
E.P. Baroocha, Ms. Fargana and KJ. John for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
Leave granted. 
We have hard the counsel on both sides. 
The contempt proceedings sought to be taken out against the respon-
G 
dents-builders/developers on the ground that the order passed by the High 
Court on 23.3.1992 in Writ Petition Nos. 923/92 and 5710/91 has been 
violated on the premises that in spite of the injunction order granted in 
terms of para (t) extracted in the impugned order, the developer is 
proceeding with the construction in plot No. 57, the prayer was turned 
. ) 
down by the High Court. It is an admitted fact that two civil suits came to 
H be filed by the owner, R.F. Mulla Trust, in the civil Court and those suits · 
2~2 
-
BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF PUNE 253 
now stand decreed. As at present the decrees are not subject matter of any A 
appeals. Under these circumstances, the High Court proceeded on the 
footing that when there is a valid decree passed by civil Court to proceed 
with the construction of the flats in plot No. 57, the action taken by the 
builder is not in violation of the order of the High Court. While so holding 
the Division Bench in the impugned order also pointed out thus : 
"We are, however, not inclined to hold that there is any contempt 
or that any restraint order is necessary." 
In view of that finding the contempt proceedings were closed holding 
B 
that whatever construction is done would be subject to the final orders in C 
the writ petitions. 
Shri Gopal Subramaniain, learned senior counsel, contended that 
though the owner of the land, namely, M/s. R.F. Mulla Trust, had given 
the right to the developer to construct the building in accordance with law, 
yet the construction is in violation of law. The appellants approached the D 
High Court that the builders are causing environmental degradation and 
the matter is pending. Interim injunction was issued restraining the builders 
to proceed with the construction except in accordance with the certificate 
issued by the Collector and the rules contained in Appendix 'S' to the 
Development Control Rules for Pune. The owner had secured injunction E 
in the civil suit by way of a declaration on a misrepresentation that the writ 
petitions pending in the High Court were disposed of and that there was 
no stay granted by the High Court to proceed with the construction in plot 
No. 57. It is contrary to the record, namely, writ petitions are pending and 
injunction order is still subsisting. Though the appellant is not a party to 
the proceedings in the suit, the developer, who got his right from the owner F 
and proceeded pursuant thereto, is also bound by the orders of the High 
Court where he is eo- nominee party respondent. The high Court ought to 
have taken serious view of the matter as the procedure adopted in the civil 
suit is nothing but to circumvent the orders of the High Court. In that 
perspective, the High Court ought to have taken serious note of the G 
violation of its orders and proceeded for contempt in accordance with law. 
May be, as contended by Shri Gopal Subramaniam the view is 
possible. But the High Court was not inclined to pursue further action 
against the developer and held that it was not in violation of the High 
Court's orders. In the view the High Court had taken, we do not think that H 
254 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
it is a case for us to interfere. Howeve~, it would be open to the appellants 
to seek such remedy as is available under law to have
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.