Sri Raja L. Sampath vs Smt. Nandini Perumal @ Kalpana Perumal, Sri. Bharma Nadi The Commissioner K G F Urban Development Authority Robertsonpet, K G F. and Sri M. Narayanappa The Chief Officer Town Municipal Council Bangarpet Town Bangarpet

Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ petitioner in W.P. No. 21169/2011 (LB RES) disposed of on 15.9.2012 is the complainant in this petition. It appears writ petitioner and 3rd respondent in the writ petition are neighbours and are warring over the property located in the Bazar Street, Bangarpet. Respondent No. 3 being purchaser of some land etc., and there being civil dispute over the issue of drain water flow passing below the property of the 1st accused and due to construction it has been obstructed and the 3rd respondent therein, had unauthorizedly constructed the building on the drain etc.

Writ petition was filed seeking for directions to the public authorities i.e., the Planning Authority and Municipal Authority to take action against the 3rd respondent for demolition of unauthorized structure. The writ petition came to be disposed of by this court reading as under:

Be that as it may, it is for respondent No. 1 to consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with law after notice to the third respondent. First respondent will have to initiate action in accordance with law. It is open for the petitioner as well as the third respondent to putforth their respective cases before the first respondent. After issuing notice to the petitioner and the third respondent and after hearing them, orders shall be passed by respondent No. 1 as early as possible, but not later than the outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, status quo to be maintained in respect the property in question, which means, the building of the third respondent shall not be demolished so also the third respondent shall not continue with the construction, till the decision of the first respondent.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly

It is thereafter, the present contempt petition is filed complaining that there is inaction on the part of the public authorities arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3 and the neighbour is arrayed as accused No. 1, who has also violated the order of this court, by putting up additional construction.

All accused persons have filed affidavits and the 2nd accused being the planning authority has indicated that the show-cause notice had been issued and the representation has come to be rejected as the complainant was not able to make good his case by production of commensurate documents. Accused No. 3 conveniently stated that there is no direction at all issued to the Municipal authorities. Accused No. 1 - private party has also filed affidavit indicating that there is no construction after this Court passed the order in the writ petition and whatever had been constructed earlier has remained intact.

The complainant has filed further affidavit to contend that accused persons have misled the Court etc.

Subsequent development after the disposal of the writ petition is that the complainant has filed civil suit in O.S. No. 261/2011 impleading accused No. 1 as defendant No. 1 and another, and the suit seeking for certain relief and declaration with reference to the drain; that the complainant-plaintiff has easementary rights for water being led through the drain below the building of accused No. 1.

The direction issued to respondent No. 1 in the writ petition was to consider the representation and if need be to take action and that having been done and the representation having been rejected for certain reasons, insofar as direction is concerned, it is complied. Insofar as the allegation against the accused No. 1 is concerned that there is further construction the affidavit filed by the 1st accused inter alia indicates that there is no further construction, but what remains in this contempt petition to be examined is the factual position, the assertion and counter assertion cannot be verified in the contempt jurisdiction. It is therefore, this contempt petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights and remedies available to the complainant either in the writ petition or to pursue the matter elsewhere in accordance with law. Before parting it is made clear that a public authority takes action for violations because it is a mandatory duty cast upon it in the statute. It is not because this Court directs that a public authority is expected to take action. This court issues directions, if there is any dereliction of statutory duty and if the responsibilities are not discharged properly. Independent of the court order or direction, it is always necessary and obligatory on the part of the public authority to take action in accordance with law against all violators.