Dipak Kumar Mukherjee vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

By an order dated May 8, 2018, one more opportunity was granted to the private respondent no. 8 to comply with the order dated October 8, 2012

passed by the Supreme Court. At the cost of repetition, the order dated October 8, 2012 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is quoted below:

“ 28. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. With a view to ensure that the illegal construction raised by

respondent no. 7 is pulled down without delay, we issue the following directions:

Within three months from today, respondent no. 7 shall pay the price of the flats etc. to the purchasers with interest @18% per annum from the

date of payment.

The occupiers of illegal/unauthorized construction shall vacate such portions of the building within next one month.

Within next one month, the Corporation shall demolish unauthorized construction after taking adequate precautionary measures.

Respondent no. 7 shall pay cost of Rs.25,00,000/for brazen violation of the sanctioned plan and continuance of illegal construction despite ‘stop

work notice’. The amount of cost shall be deposited with the Kolkata State Legal Service Authority within three months and the same be utilized

for providing legal aid in deserving cases.

Reports showing compliance of the aforesaid directions be filed by the Corporation and respondent no. 7 in the Registry of the Kolkata High Court

within six months. Thereafter, the matter be placed before the learned Single Judge who had passed order dated 28.07.2010. If the learned Single

Judge finds that any of the aforesaid directions has not been implemented then he shall initiate proceedings against the defaulting officers and/or

respondent No. 7 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and pass appropriate order.â€​

Learned advocate for the respondent no. 8 submits that, the time prescribed for the purpose of initiation for contempt proceeding has expired. He

draws the attention of the Court to an order dated October 1, 2015 and submits that, his client has submitted a show-cause pursuant to such order.

The show-cause should be disposed of. He seeks time till tomorrow to take instruction as to when his client would be in a position to comply with the

order dated October 8, 2012.

The directions contained in the order dated October 8, 2012 are noted above. The directions are of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The private

respondent has avoided complying with the order till date despite several orders by the Court thereafter. The reply in the show-cause by the petitioner

does not make out any acceptable ground for non-compliance with the directions contained in the order dated October 8, 2012. The pleas taken are

specious.

In such circumstances, the respondent no. 8 will be personally present on May 15, 2018. He will submit an affidavit as to the assets on such date. In

such affidavit as to assets, he will disclose the immovable property that he holds in his name. He will disclose the immovable properties held in the

name of any legal entity in which he is either a partner or a director or a signatory of any bank account. He will disclose the legal entities in which he

has any interest.

The private respondent is restrained by an order of injunction from operating any bank account standing in his name or in which he is a signatory. He

is restrained from dealing with any asset or property belonging to him until further orders. List the writ petition on May 15, 2018 under the same

heading. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.