The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of parties to comply with court directions and the serious consequences for non-compliance.

JUDGMENT :

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. The dispute in this Contempt Petition and Miscellaneous Applications relates to the redevelopment of property situated at Plot No.231, T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai also known as Jariwala Chawls (“subject property”). As we are not concerned with the historical background, the antecedent facts are not dealt with in this judgment. The brief facts that are necessary for the adjudication of the dispute herein are as follows.

2. The tenants/occupants of the Jariwala Chawl filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No.2545 of 2006 in the High Court of Bombay for the following reliefs :

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to permit redevelopment of the said property known as Jariwala Chawl, situated at Plot No.231, T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai 400016 in accordance with the decision recorded in the Minutes of the meeting dated 2.8.2004;

(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to forthwith issue the NOC for the purpose of redevelopment of the said property known as Jariwala Chawl, situated at Plot No.231, T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai 400016 in accordance with the Minutes of the meeting dated 2.8.2004;

(c) That Respondent No.6 be directed to forthwith commence redevelopment of the said property known as Jariwala Chawl, situated at Plot No.231, T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai 400016 in accordance with the provisions of Development Regulations 33(7) and (9);”

3. On 21.01.2016, the High Court passed an order in the said Writ Petition to the following effect :

“(a) The Chief Officer of the MBRRB in the first instance will file an authenticated copy of the list of occupants in his custody in a sealed cover in this Court on or before 2nd February 2016;

(b) On or before 15th February 2016, both developers shall also file in sealed covers in this Court and simultaneously in sealed cover with the Chief Officer, MHADA a list of the occupants from whom each of them they claim to have obtained consents along with the necessary supporting documents;

(c) All the sealed covers shall be retained by the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court until further orders;

(d) Thereafter, by 29 th February 2016, the Chief Officer will fix a meeting at which all these documents will be opened and scrutinize. That would be done in the presence of the representatives of these developers;

(e) It is clarified that if the Chief Officer finds that the same occupants has given consent to both sides, then the consent so given will not be taken into account in computing the 70% requirement for either side;

(f) The Chief Officer will then assess which of the two Developers has authenticated and bona fide 70% consent. Further development will be carried out only by the developer having such confirmed consent;

(g) If neither Developer is able to establish such consent, further development will be carried out on a priority basis by MHADA itself through its own resources and for which it may appoint Architects, Surveyors, Engineers and Contractors (but not another developer);

(h) The decision of the Chief Officer will be final and binding on all concerned and will not be called into question;

(i) The entire exercise in terms of our directions will be completed by the end of 15 th April 2016 and conclusions reached by the Chief Officer shall be filed in a sealed cover with this Court.”

4. In compliance of the directions issued by the High Court, an exercise was conducted by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (for short “MHADA”) on 05.04.2016 to identify which developer/builder has the requisite 70% consent of the tenants/occupiers to carry out the redevelopment of the subject property. MHADA reported to the High Court that neither M/s. Raj Doshi Exports Pvt. Ltd. nor M/s. Matoshree Infrastructure Privat