Siraj Ali Panjwani vs Saifuddin Lakhani 3 Others

Regard being had to the controversy involved in the aforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

The facts of C.A.No.15 of 2017 are reproduced as under:

The present appeal is arising out of an order dated 18.04.2017 passed in C.C.No.2053 of 2016. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant before

this Court, who was arrayed as a contemnor in the contempt case, is having a flat in a building, named as Mega Residency, located at House No.5-8-

505/A/4, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad. The building is of four floors, including a pent house. The appellant before this Court, Siraj Ali Panjwani, was

residing at fourth floor and he was having 80 years old parents and therefore he wanted to install a lift in the building to be used by all the residents of

the building. It has been stated that he has applied for grant of permission to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) on 27.05.2016.

However, as no permission was granted, taking shelter of deemed sanction, he started constructing the lift. The construction of the lift was over and

as an action was initiated by the GHMC in the matter of installation of lift, a civil suit was preferred i.e., O.S.No.2072 of 2016, on the file of the

learned IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. An application was preferred i.e., I.A.No.329 of 2016 and the trial Court granted injunction

in the matter, as prayed for, on 30.08.2016. Meaning thereby, the GHMC was restrained from removing the lift, which was functional by then. The

respondent No.1 in the present appeal, who was the writ petitioner â€" Saifuddin Lakhani, preferred a writ petition before this Court and the learned

Single Judge has granted an interim order on 16.09.2016, meaning thereby, after the injunction order was granted in the civil suit. The learned Single

Judge, by the aforesaid order, held that construction of the lift is being made by Siraj Ali Panjwani and it should be stopped by the GHMC. A contempt

case was filed thereafter stating that the GHMC officials have violated the interim order passed in W.P.No.30420 of 2016 dated 16.09.2016 and the

relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.09.2016 is reproduced as under:-

“Pending further orders, the construction for lift allegedly being made by 5th respondent in the subject premises shall be stopped by the Greater

Hyderabad Municipal Corporation officials for a period of four weeks since the petitioner contends that no permission has been granted by the Greater

Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for the said construction.â€​

The order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that the said order was passed directing the GHMC officials to stop the construction of lift. The

learned Single Judge, as the lift was not removed/dismantled, has held the appellant guilty and the officers of the GHMC have also been held guilty.

The operative portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case No.2053 of 2016 in paragraph 51 reads as under:-

“51. For the aforesaid reasons, the Contempt Case is allowed; the 4th respondent is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand

only) within six weeks from today; the respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall also pay fine of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) within six weeks from

today; the respondent nos. 1-3 shall remove the lift erected by the 4th respondent in the subject complex within 4 weeks from today without reference

to the interim order dt.30.08.2016 in I.A.No.329 of 2016 in O.S.No.2072 of 2016 on the file of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad;

the 1st respondent shall cause an enquiry into the conduct of the officials of GHMC in Circle-8 in relation to the above facts pointed out by the Court

and initiate disciplinary proceedings against the persons responsible for violation of the orders passed by this Court; and he shall also ensure that in the

City Civil Court at Hyderabad or Secunderabad or Ranga Reddy, competent Counsel are engaged by the GHMC who would defend it properly in

litigation initiated against it or by it.â€​

This Court fails to understand as to how an interim order passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.2072 of 2016, without it being set aside or without it

being vacated, could have been ignored by the GHMC authorities.

Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, as the construction of the lift was already over by 16.09.2016, the same could not have been

removed in the light of the injunction order granted on 30.08.2016 in I.A.No.329 of 2016 in O.S.No.2072 of 2016.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the order sentencing the appellant in C.A.No.15 of 2017 to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- is set aside and the order

sentencing the appellants in C.A.No.25 of 2017 to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- is also set aside. The observation regarding removal of the lift also stands

set aside.

However, it is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on merits so far as the installation of the lift is concerned, as the civil suit and the

writ petition are still pending. The learned Single Judge having roster to hear the writ petition shall be free to decide the issue in accordance with law.

The present order is only confined in respect of the order passed in Contempt Case No.2053 of 2016.

With the aforesaid, both the appeals stand allowed.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.