Acceptance of unconditional apology with specified conditions in contempt proceedings.

JAYANT PATEL, J.

1. The basis of the present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act is the alleged breach and noncompliance of the order dated 18.11.2016 passed by this Court in RFA 1582/13 whereby, there was prohibition against construction over the schedule property.

2. We have heard Mr. D.R.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. M.T.Nanaiah, learned Sr. Counsel with Sri. Prabhugoud S.Tumbigi, learned counsel for accused no. 1.

3. We may record that, after the process was issued by this Court, while the matter was considered on 6.7.2017, this Court passed the following order:

“We have heard Mr.Somashekharaiah R.P., learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr.K.S.Mohit Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the accused.

It appears that this Court on 08.10.2013 granted interim order, whereby qua site Nos.21 and 22, there was also prohibition from putting up any construction and the said order is in operation after hearing both the parties and extended till further orders and the application for vacating of the interim order made by the accused is uptil now not decided.

The grievance on the part of the complainant is that inspite of the order passed by this Court being in operation, the construction is made over the land in question. A defence on the part of the accused is that there were some cracks developed and therefore the surfacing was made and roofing was made, but no construction.

It may be recorded that in the proceedings of RFA No.1582/2013, this Court had directed the Officer of Bangalore Development Authority to inspect the property and report to the Court and in the said report, it is observed by the Officer after inspection of the property interalia of which reads as under:

“It is observed that the structure appears to be newly constructed with an outer limit of not more than 6 months from the date of inspection.”

The aforesaid prima facie shows that the order is breached and there is disobedience of the order.

The learned Counsel for the accused states that the property is rented to Mr. Govindaraju, at the rate of Rs.26,000/- p.m. In our prima facie view, since the construction is in breach of the order, the property may be required to be sealed but as third party i.e., Mr. Govindaraju, is in possession, the notice may be required to be issued to him.

Hence, Mr. Govindaraju, residing at No.1102/1 and 1107/1, S.C. Road, Pipeline Road, Yeshwanthpura, Bangalore-560 022, with the description which is given by the complainant shall be joined as the party.

Notice to Mr. Govindaraju, returnable on 19.07.2017. Notice shall be served through Police Officer of the concerned Police Station. The said Govindaraju, shall remain personally present before this Court on the next date with the lease agreement if any, executed and shall report to this Court as to why the property which is constructed in breach of the order should not be sealed, subject to further orders as may be passed by this Court.”

4. Thereafter, the matter was once again considered by this Court on 19.7.2017 and on that day the following order was passed:

“Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court Mr.Govindraju is identified by Mr. K.S. Mohit Kumar, learned Counsel for accused is personally present and he states that he is unaware about the interim order of this Court.

He has no objection if the premises is sealed as per the order of the Court, but his belongings lying inside the premises may be permitted to be shifted and he states that he would require two weeks time to take out his belongings.

Sri Govindaraju, shall remove his belongings from the premises on or before 03.08.2017. Thereafter on 07.08.2017 the Police Officer of the concerned Police Station shall seal the premises and the report shall be submitted to this Court on 09.08.2017.

Put up the matter on 09.08.2017.”

5. Since the Police Officer had not submitted the report of compliance of the order on 9.8.2017, the learned AGA had taken time and ultimately on 21.8.2017, the report