Breach of undertakings given to the court undermines judicial authority, leading to dismissal of petitions aimed at stalling enforcement of demolition orders.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Shivraj Gaonkar for the petitioner, Mr. Somnath Karpe for respondent no.1 - Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP), Ms. S. Bangera for respondents no.2 and 3, Mr. Gaurang Panandikar for respondents no.4 and 5 and Mr. Shubham Priolkar, learned AGA for the State.

2. This petition is an abuse of the judicial process and has been instituted by the brothers and sons of the second and third respondents, who have suffered a demolition order from the CCP and further gave undertakings to this Court that they would demolish the structures in question within a time-bound schedule. After the demolitions were partially carried out, the present petitioners, after having unsuccessfully challenged the orders made by this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, have instituted this petition to stall the demolition process which is undertaken. The petition is replete with false contentions and suppressions.

3. The fourth and fifth respondents (complainants) complained to the CCP about the patently illegal constructions by Shailesh and his mother (second and third respondents). The complainants pursued the matter with the CCP because, initially, no action was taken on their complaints. Finally, the CCP issued a show cause notice dated 01.01.2019 under Section 269 of the CCP Act, 2002. This was responded to, and by final notice dated 21.05.2019, the structures were ordered to be demolished.

4. The second and third respondents appealed to the State Government against the demolition order, but the appeal was dismissed on 10.01.2020. The second and the third respondents then instituted Writ Petition No.142/2023, challenging the order dated 10.01.2020. The learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of this petition by order dated 11.04.2023. This Court noted that an application had been made for regularisation of the structure. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed that until the regularisation application is disposed of, no coercive action should be taken concerning the structure in question. This order also records an undertaking that the illegal constructions would be demolished if there was no regularisation.

5. The Planning and Development Authority declined regularisation by communication dated 23.03.2022 since there were no compliances. Despite regularisation being declined, in breach of the undertaking given to this Court, no demolitions were carried out, and the illegal construction continued to be enjoyed, inter alia, for commercial and residential purposes.

6. Accordingly, respondents 4 and 5 (original complainants) instituted Writ Petition No.663/2023 in this Court, seeking directions to the CCP to execute the demolition order, which had attained finality. By Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2023, the Division Bench of this Court recorded Mr. Karpe's statement on behalf of CCP that the final demolition notice dated 21.05.2019 would be implemented within three weeks without giving any excuses. This Court directed that if, for any reason, the demolition squads maintained by the Government were not available, the CCP would make its own arrangements to carry out the demolition. This Court clarified that the disposal of the petition was without prejudice to the complainants' rights to issue contempt proceedings against the second and the third respondents for breach of the undertaking given before the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.142/2023.

7. The second and the third respondents, despite breaching the undertaking given by them to this Court, filed Misc. Civil Application No.2524/2023 (F) seeking a re-call of this Court's order dated 10.10.2023 in Writ Petition No.663/2023. After this application was argued for some time, the counsel for the second and the third respondents, based on instructions, did not press the reliefs in the application but stated that they would themselves demolish the structures by 15.12.2023. Once again, these respondents offered to file an undertaking in the Court.

8. Mr.