SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- K. Venkataswami and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.

Civil Appeal Nos. 794 of 1999 with No. 4495 of 1998. D/d. 12.2.1999.

Baldevbhai Gopalbhai and others - Appellants

Versus

K.M.V. Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. and others - Respondents

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 12 - Contempt of Court - Punishment - Accused continued with construction work in breach of Order of injunction issued by the Court - Accused sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- - High Court further ordered demolition of construction already put up in breach of Courts order - Held, Order directing demotition of construction not proper, when question of legality of construction was not finally decided - Further held, Section 12 does not contemplate punishment of such nature - Accused however being 82 years of age was sentenced to period already undergone. (28 days).

[Paras 8 and 9]

ORDER

K. Venkataswami, J. - Delay condoned. Civil Appeal No. 4495 of 1998 admitted.

2. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 10336 of 1998.

3. Heard counsel for both the parties.

4. These appeals are directed against the same order of the Gujarat High Court in Contempt Petition No. 485 of 1993.

5. We confine ourselves to the legality of the punishment awarded by the High Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We make it clear that we are not going into the legality or otherwise of the findings of the High Court regarding the disputed construction said to have been made contrary to the direction of the respondent Cooperative Society. We leave that matter open to be agitated in an appropriate forum.

6. In this case, the High Court, on facts, found that the appellant in CA No. 4495 of 1998 has committed breach of the order of injunction by proceeding with the construction. For that, the High Court has punished the contemner to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months, in addition to the payment of fine of Rs 2000 within one week. The High Court has further ordered demolition of the construction already put up in breach of the Court's order.

7. The question for consideration here is whether the High Court was right in ordering the demolition of the construction to purge the contempt committed by the parties. The High Court has said as follows:

'To purge the contempt committed by the respondent, the respondent should demolish the construction and restore the position as it was on the date on which the Board of Nominees passed the order. We grant six months' time to inducted persons to vacate the premises which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is quite reasonable. On expiry of sixth months from today, the respondent shall demolish the structure which is constructed by him or through his agent in contravention of the orders passed by this Court and shall restore the position as it was on the day on which the Board of Nominees passed the order. We direct the inducted persons to vacate the premises within a period of six months from today, failing which they shall be forcibly evicted and the premises shall be restored as it was on the day on which the Board of Nominees passed the order. It is further directed that the persons who are inducted and are occupying the premises, shall also file an undertaking clearly stating that property possessed by them shall not be transferred in any manner whatsoever and further that possession will not be handed over to anyone till the superstructure is demolished. Copy of the undertaking duly signed will be supplied to the Society. Undertaking by each occupier to be filed within a period of a fortnight.'

8. Section 12 of the Act does not contemplate punishment of the said nature while considering the petition for contempt of court. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to support that para of the order of the High Court ordering demolition of the construction put up in breach of the Court's order. It is well known that the purpose of punishment for contempt is to act as deterrent and to uphold the prestige of the court. In this case, the issue relating to permissibility of the disputed construction is not finally decided. The punishment was only for breach of the court's order which is different from the right of the contemner to put up the disputed construction.

9. In the circumstances, we set aside that portion of the High Court's order directing demolition of the construction put up in breach of the court's order. It is stated that the contemner has already undergone imprisonment for 28 days and has paid the fine. While upholding the finding of the High Court on breach of the court's order, we reduce the sentence, taking into consideration the age of the contemner which is said to be 82 years, to the period already undergone in addition to the payment of Rs 2000 as fine.

10. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.

11. No costs.