1999 (8) TMI 1024 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by breaching an undertaking given to the court.
2. Whether the respondents' actions amounted to criminal contempt.
3. Whether the respondents violated the status quo order issued by the court.
4. Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation for the demolition of their cabins.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Contempt of Court by Breach of Undertaking:
The applicants alleged that the respondents, specifically the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and its officers, committed contempt by breaching an undertaking given to the court on 20.8.1997. The applicants claimed that a statement was made by the respondents' counsel, Mr. S.N. Shelat, that no demolition would be effected until the hearing on the next day. The court noted that the statement made on 20.8.1997 was not recorded in the court's proceedings, and it was unclear whether the statement was made as an undertaking to the court or as an assurance to the opposite party. The court concluded that it was not satisfactorily established that any statement to the court was made by Mr. Shelat as an undertaking to the court with a view to obtain any favorable order or relaxation from the court. Therefore, the court found that the actions of the respondents did not strictly fall within the scope of civil contempt.

2. Criminal Contempt:
The applicants argued that the respondents' actions not only amounted to civil contempt but also criminal contempt. The court distinguished between civil and criminal contempt, noting that while civil contempt involves disobedience of court orders or breach of undertaking, criminal contempt involves actions that scandalize the court, interfere with judicial proceedings, or obstruct the administration of justice. The court concluded that the respondents' actions did not fall within the purview of criminal contempt, as the actions did not prejudice or interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or the administration of justice.

3. Violation of Status Quo Order:
The applicants alleged that the respondents violated the status quo order issued by the court on 21.8.1997 by demolishing the cabins and utilizing the site for parking. The court found that the demolition and removal of cabins had already taken place before the status quo order was issued. The court also noted that the status quo order did not prohibit the respondents from reasonable use of the site, such as laying tar for regulated use of traffic, as long as no further demolition or construction was carried out. Therefore, the court concluded that the respondents did not violate the status quo order.

4. Compensation for Demolition of Cabins:
The applicants sought compensation for the demolition of their cabins. The court held that the issue of compensation could only be considered in substantive proceedings and not within the domain of the contempt proceedings. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the applicants' claim for compensation, leaving it open for the applicants to pursue such relief in appropriate proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court discharged the notices of contempt against the respondents, finding that the actions did not amount to civil or criminal contempt. However, the court criticized the respondents for acting irresponsibly and unreasonably, breaching their duty to act fairly. The court ordered the respondents to bear the costs of the proceedings, quantified at Rs. 5,000 each, to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority.