Madras High Court
T.R.Rajagopalan vs R.Parthasarathy on 11 September, 2006
Author: M.Karpagavinayagam
Bench: M.Karpagavinayagam, A.C.Arumugaperumal Adityan
?IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS %DATED: 11/09/2006 *CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN +Review Appln. No.84 of 2005 #Kumaran Silks Trade Ltd. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx $Dr.Devendra xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx !FOR PETITIONER : T.R.Rajagopalan ^FOR RESPONDENT : R.Parthasarathy :ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :: 11-09-2006 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN REVIEW APPLICATION No.84 OF 2005 AND REVIEW SUB-APPLICATION No.366 OF 2001 Kumaran Silks Trade Ltd.
(Cause Title amended as T.C.S.Textiles Pvt.Ltd., by orders of this Court, dated 19.10.2005) ... Applicant in both Applications
-vs-
1.Dr.Devendra
2.S.Abaya Kumar Jain
3.Vimal Kumar
4.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai -3.
5.The Chairman, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai 8.
6.The Executive Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
7.The Junior Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 .... Respondents in Rev.Appln.No.84/2005
1.Dr.Devendra
2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai -3.
3.The Chairman, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai 8.
4.The Executive Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
5.The Junior Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 ....Respondents in Rev.Sub-Appln.No.366/2001 Review Applications against the orders, dated 03.08.2000 and 02.03.2001, passed in W.A.No.1171 of 2000 and Contempt Application No.560 of 2000, on the file of this Court.
For applicant in both Applications : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.S.Kadarkarai.
For respondents 1 to 3 in Rev.Appln.No.84/2005 & respondent 1 in Rev.Sub-Appln.No.366/2001 : Mr.R.Parthasarathy, for Mr.Satish Parasaran For respondents 4,6 and 7 in Rev.Appln.No.84/2005 & respondents 2,4 and 5 in Rev.Sub-Appln.No.366/2001:Mr.C.Ravichandran for Mr.Mohamad Ghouse For respondent 5 in Rev.Appln.No.84/2005 & respondent 3 in Rev.Sub-Appln.No.366/2001: Mr.K.Elango, Spl.Govt.Pleader, for Mr.J.Ravindran.
O R D E R M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM,J.
In these applications, the order, dated 03.08.2000, passed in W.A.No.1171 of 2000, and the order, dated 02.03.2001, passed in Contempt Application No.560 of 2000, are sought to be reviewed.
2. On 23.07.2004, the Supreme Court, in SLP (Civil) No.20423 of 2002, passed an order, directing that Review Applications could be considered by the High Court, on merits.
3. On 03.08.2000, the First Bench of this Court, by an order, passed in W.A.No.1171 of 2000, permitted Kumaran Silks Trade Limited, the review applicant, to make construction as per the approved plan, on the condition that he should furnish an undertaking to Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, in short CMDA, to the effect that if any construction is found in variation against the sanctioned plan, he will demolish the same at his own risk.
4. Since the said order has been violated, the writ petitioner filed contempt application in Contempt Application No.560 of 2000, alleging that the review applicant is liable to be punished for contempt, since he did not file the undertaking before CMDA and he continued to construct the building, in violation of the approved plan.
5. By the order dated 02.03.2001, the First Bench of this Court found the review applicant, namely, Kumaran Silks Trade Limited guilty of contempt and imposed fine and further directed the review applicant to demolish the unauthorised construction made after 03.08.2000 within one month, failing which the civic authorities, the respondents 1 and 2 will demolish the unauthorised construction.
6. These orders were challenged in the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, it was represented that in view of the subsequent development viz., the introduction of amendment to Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, providing for regularisation of unauthorised construction, which came into force subsequent to the order, dated 03.08.2000, and, on which basis, an application for clarification of the said order, with regard to Section 113-A, is filed by the review applicant and the same is pending before the High Court, both the orders have to be reviewed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court, by the order, dated 23.07.2004, directed the High Court to review both the orders, dated 03.08.2000 and 02.03.2001, having regard to the amendment to Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, by which the review applicant is entitled to get the benefits. That is how both these Review Applications have come up for hearing before this Court.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the review applicant and also the respondents.
8. At the outset, it would be proper to give short details about the required facts, which are relevant for disposal of these Review Applications. They are as follows :
(i) Kumaran Silks Trade Limited, review applicant, obtained planning permission from CMDA for construction of Basement Floor, Stilt Parking Floor and four floors, for commercial purpose, on 27.03.2000. But, contrary to the sanctioned plan, dated 27.03.2000, the review applicant put up construction, without any permission from CMDA, causing inconvenience and disturbance to the neighbourers.
(ii) Therefore, Dr.S.Devendra, one of the neighbourers, first respondent herein, filed a writ petition, namely, W.P.No.10965 of 2000 for a mandamus, directing the CMDA to remove or demolish all portions of construction, made contrary to the sanctioned plan.
(iii) On 30.06.2000, this Court granted interim injunction, restraining the review applicant from constructing any building contrary to the sanctioned plan, and ordered notice to Kumaran Silks Trade Limited and also the other parties.
(iv) After appearance of the parties, this Court, by an order dated 07.07.2000, vacated the interim injunction. Therefore, Dr.Devendra filed an appeal i.e., W.A.No.1171 of 2000, against the order vacating the interim injunction, granted on 30.06.2000.
(v) Pending Writ Appeal, by an order dated 24.07.2000, the parties were directed to maintain status quo as on that date.
(vi) When the Writ Appeal was taken up for final disposal, ultimately, the Division Bench, by the order dated 03.08.2000, permitted the review applicant, to make construction as per the approved plan. The review applicant was further directed to furnish an undertaking to CMDA the next day itself i.e., on 04.08.2000 that he would not make any construction, in variation or violation of the sanctioned plan and, on furnishing such an undertaking, he could proceed with the construction as per the approved plan. CMDA was also permitted to take any action for violation, if any, in accordance with law.
(vii) On 04.08.2000, the review applicant sent an undertaking to CMDA that he undertakes to put up construction as per the approved plan, dated 27.03.2000, and the revised plan submitted by him on 19.07.2000. However, the said undertaking was not received by CMDA.
(viii) Therefore, on 28.08.2000, CMDA issued a letter to the review applicant, indicating that he should furnish an undertaking to CMDA as per the orders of High Court, dated 03.08.2000, failing which the authorities would be at liberty to demolish the construction.
(ix) On 30.08.2000, the review applicant sent a letter to CMDA, stating that he filed a regularisation application, which is pending before the Planning Authority, and after exhausting all statutory remedies under the Act, he would demolish the construction and rectify the building in accordance with the plan.
(x) Since the construction was going on, the authorities sent a Demolition Notice to the review applicant on 31.08.2000.
(xi) On 18.09.2000, CMDA sent a letter to the review applicant, stating that the applicant was proceeding with the construction in deviation to the sanctioned plan with an unauthorised construction of fifth and sixth floors and the same would amount to wanton and wilful disobedience of the orders of the High Court and making a request to the review applicant to stop construction forthwith.
(xii) On 28.09.2000, CMDA made an inspection and found the construction of seventh floor, as unauthorised.
(xiii) At that stage, Dr.Devendra, first respondent herein, filed the Contempt Application No.560 of 2000. The said Contempt Application was entertained and, after hearing the parties, the review applicant was found guilty, by the order dated 02.03.2001, and directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in addition to demolition of unauthorised construction after 03.08.2000, within one month from that day, failing which the authorities would demolish the unauthorised construction.
(xiv) The review applicant filed an SLP No.5333 of 2001 against the order dated 03.08.2000, passed in W.A.No.1171 of 2000, and C.A.No.1837 of 2001 against the order dated 02.03.2001, passed in Contempt Application No.560 of 2000.
(xv) Ultimately, the Supreme Court passed a final order in the above appeals on 23.07.2004, directing the review applicant to approach the High Court, seeking for review of the orders dated 03.08.2000 and 02.03.2001, in the light of the fact that the application for clarification of the order, regarding regularisation in accordance with the amendment to Section 113-A, is pending before the High Court. In pursuance of the said order, dated 23.07.2004, the parties are before this Court, with these Review Applications.
9. Before going into the merits of the matter, it would be better to refer to the relevant observation of the Supreme Court in the order, dated 23.07.2004 :
"Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, came into force subsequent to the order dated 03.08.2000. The application for clarification of the order dated 03.08.2000 with regard to Section 113-A is still pending before the High Court. The SLP from the order dated 03.08.2000 was not dismissed on merits. There was also a Civil Appeal from the order dated 02.03.2001 pending before this Court which arose out of an alleged violation of the order dated 03.08.2000. In disposing of the appeal, we had allowed the petitioner to file a review petition before the High Court. Finally, the writ petition of the Respondent No.1 is still pending. The order dated 03.08.2000 was an interlocutory order. In all these circumstances, we are of the view that the delay should have been condoned and the orders dated 03.08.2000 and 02.03.2001 be reviewed on merits."
10. As correctly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the review applicant, the effect of the above order, passed by the Supreme Court, is that the order, dated 03.08.2000, has to be reviewed in view of the subsequent development viz., introduction of amendment to Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
11. In the light of the above factors, the order, dated 03.08.2000, has to be reviewed, having regard to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the amendment to Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. Thus, it is clear that the order, dated 03.08.3000, has to be reviewed, only in the light of the introduction of amendment to Section 113-A of the Act and in view of the fact that the application for clarification of the order, dated 03.08.2000, with regard to introduction of amendment to Section 113-A, is still pending before the High Court. In other words, it is contended that if the amendment to Section 113-A had been taken into consideration by the First Bench of this Court, the First Bench would not have passed the final order on 03.08.2000, giving such a direction and, consequently, the review applicant could not have been punished in the contempt application, by the order dated 02.03.2001.
12. Before dealing with the questions raised in these Review Applications, let us now refer to the relevant guidelines, given by the Supreme Court in various decisions, with reference to the power and scope of review of this Court :
(i) AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 935 (M/S.A.C.ESTATES v. SERAJUDDIN & CO.) :
10....But, this cannot be a case of review on the ground of discovery of new and important matter, for such matter has to be something which existed at the date of the order and there can be no review of an order which was right when made on the ground of the happening of some subsequent event..."
(ii) 1996 (4) SUPREME COURT CASES 622 (DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION CO.(P) LTD.):
"17. The principle that a contemner ought not to be permitted to enjoy and/or keep the fruits of his contempt is well settled. In Mohd.Idris v. Rustam Jehangir Babuji (1984 (4) SCC 216), this Court held clearly that undergoing the punishment for contempt does not mean that the Court is not entitled to give appropriate directions for remedying and rectifying the things done in violation of its orders...."
19.... In Century Flour Mills Ltd. (AIR 1975 MADRAS 270), it was held by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court that where an act is done in violation of an order of stay or injunction, it is the duty of the Court, as a policy, to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrongdoing. The inherent power of the Court, it was held, is not only available in such a case, but it is bound to exercise it to undo the wrong in the interest of justice. That was a case where a meeting was held contrary to an order of injunction. The Court refused to recognise that the holding of the meeting is a legal one. It put back the parties in the same position as they stood immediately prior to the service of the interim order."
13. Bearing the above guidelines given by the Supreme Court in mind, let us now deal with the Review Applications with regard to the order passed in W.A.No.1171 of 2000 and the order passed in Contempt Application No.560 of 2000, one by one.
14. Contents of the order, dated 03.08.2000, passed by the First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1171 of 2000, are as follows :
"(a) Interim injunction was granted on 30.06.2000 by the learned single Judge, on the writ petition filed by neighbourers against Kumaran Silks Trade Limited. The learned single Judge vacated the said interim injunction on 07.07.2000.
(b) Appellant/writ petitioner submits that Kumaran Silks is not making construction as per the approved plan and rules; therefore, he should be checked at the initial stage, otherwise he will make illegal construction and then seek for ratification.
(c) Kumaran Silks Trade Limited, fifth respondent, submits that he is making construction only as per the approved plan.
(d) Corporation of Chennai has to monitor the construction work and if there is any deviation in the construction, the Corporation has to take appropriate action. Therefore, the fifth respondent is allowed to make construction as per the approved plan. He should not take advantage of the permission given by this Court for further construction, in violation of the rules, and seek for ratification thereafter. He should furnish an undertaking to the CMDA that he would not construct in variation to the sanctioned plan and if such a construction is found, he will demolish the same. On furnishing such an undertaking, he can proceed with the construction, as per the approved plan."
(i) The above order is sought to be reviewed, on the main ground that the law relating to regularisation of unauthorised and illegal constructions underwent a change subsequent to the order dated 03.08.2000, by amendments to Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,1971, and since the said order, dated 03.08.2000, passed prior to the amendments, prevents the review applicant from getting the benefit of those amendments, the said order is to be reviewed and cancelled.
(ii) On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the review, which is sought to be made, is to be rejected on two grounds :
(a) Firstly, it is true that the Supreme Court directed the applicant to move this Court for review, in the light of the pendency of the application filed by the review applicant for ratification under Section 113-A of the Act. Admittedly, the amendment to Section 113-A was introduced on 29.09.2000. Though Section 113-A could be construed as a change in law, which was introduced subsequent to the order dated 03.08.2000, in our view, the subsequent change in law will not render void an order already passed in judicial proceedings. As held by the Supreme Court, unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for subserving the ends of justice or for preventing the abuse of the process of the Court, there cannot be a case of review, on the ground of discovery of new and important matter, and there can be no review of an order which was right when made on the ground of happening of some subsequent event, in view of the observation made by the Supreme Court in A.C.Estates v. Serajuddin & Co., (AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 935).
(b) In this case, as indicated above, this Court, by the order dated 03.08.2000, allowed the review applicant to make construction only as per the approved plan. Incidentally, this Court made an observation that the review applicant should not take advantage of the permission granted by this Court for further construction, in violation of the rules, and also should not seek for ratification thereafter.
(c) Under those circumstances, this Court directed the review applicant to give an undertaking to Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority that he would not make construction in variation to the sanctioned plan and if such a construction is found, he would demolish the same. The said direction cannot be said to be wrong, in view of the fact that on the date of the order, dated 03.08.2000, learned counsel for the review applicant represented to the Court that he was prepared to furnish such an undertaking in writing to CMDA on 04.08.2006 itself, and, accordingly, the order was passed. Therefore, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record of the order, dated 03.08.2000.
(d) Secondly, when the arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties before this Court in these Review Applications, it was brought to the notice, that amendments to Section 113-A, on the basis of which the review applicant seeks for ratification of the additional constructions, were held to be invalid by the First Bench, by an order dated 23.08.2006, passed in W.P.No.18898 of 2000 and other connected matters. Contents of the said order are as follows :
"(i) The constitutional validity of Section 113-A was upheld by the Supreme Court in CONSUMER ACTION GROUP v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2000 (7) SCC 425), as a one-time measure. By the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Ordinance 7 of 2000 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 2000), Section 113-A was further amended, whereby all buildings constructed on or before 31.08.2000 would be considered for regularisation. Thereafter, the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Ordinance 5 of 2001 (Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 2001) was promulgated, putting off the date for regularisation of the unauthorised constructions to 31.07.2001. Thereafter, the cut-off date for regularisation was again extended to 31.03.2002, by the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Tamil Nadu Act 7 of 2002).
(ii) The above three Acts are sought to be challenged in the Writ Petitions, as they are ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, in the case of CONSUMER ACTION GROUP v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, while upholding the validity of Section 113-A as a one-time measure, warned that it is high time that remedial measures were taken to check this pattern, as it retards development and jeopardises all purposeful plans of any city. The Court also cautioned that State's power of exemption under Section 113 of the Act has to be exercised with greater circumspection. Though the municipal laws permit deviations from sanctioned constructions being regularised by compounding but that is by way of exception, only such deviations deserve to be condoned as are bona fide. The cases of professional builders stand on a different footing from an individual constructing his own building. Deliberate deviations do not deserve to be condoned and compounded.
(iii) Therefore, the amendments to Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,1971, by Amending Acts 31 of 2000, 17 of 2001 and 7 of 2002 and the consequential amendments are hereby declared as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
(e) In view of the law laid down by the First Bench of this Court, by the order dated 23.08.2006, to the effect that all the three amendments, namely, the Amending Acts 31 of 2000, 17 of 2001 and 7 of 2002 to Section 113-A of the Act are held to be ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, nothing survives in this Review Application, in view of the deletion of amendments to Section 113-A, and, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
15. Let us now deal with the other Review Application, with reference to the order passed on 02.03.2001 in Contempt Application No.560 of 2000. Gist of the said order is as follows :
"On 03.08.2000, this Court gave permission to Kumaran Silks Trade Limited, to make construction as per the approved plan and rules and to furnish an undertaking before CMDA that he would not violate the approved plan and rules and also would not make further construction and ask for ratification. Though it is stated that the undertaking was filed on 04.08.2000, Member Secretary of CMDA in his letter, dated 28.08.2000, clearly stated that Kumaran Silks Trade Limited has not furnished any undertaking on 04.08.2000. CMDA found that there was a deviation in the construction. Caution Notice was given. Despite the receipt of Caution Notice, basement, ground floor and two floors are constructed, in violation of the Building Rules. Even while the Contempt Application is pending, he has constructed further floors, namely, fourth floor to sixth floor. Demolition Notice was issued on 31.08.2000. The statement of CMDA shows that the undertaking was not received on 04.08.2000. Even assuming that such an undertaking was received by CMDA on 04.08.2000 and the seal was found in the said document, it does not indicate that the undertaking has been given to the effect that the construction has been made as per the approved plan. On the other hand, the undertaking shows that he will make construction as per the approved plan as well as the revised plan, submitted by it on 19.07.2000. Admittedly, there is no reference about the undertaking with reference to the revised plan, dated 19.07.2000, in the order dated 03.08.2000. Therefore, the said undertaking is not an undertaking in accordance with the direction of the High Court. Further, as a camouflage, he has taken advantage of the undertaking and allowed the construction further. Kumaran Silks Trade Limited was not making construction as per the approved plan. No application was filed before the Court, seeking permission of this Court, for construction of other floors as per the revised plan. He has proceeded with the construction and put up seventh floor, which is not disputed. The order dated 03.08.2000 has been deliberately disobeyed. So, the contemner is found guilty of contempt. He is directed to demolish the deviation and unauthorised construction, which is against the approved plan, constructed after the order dated 03.08.2000, within one month. We impose a fine of Rs.10,000/-, to be deposited with the Court, within one month."
(i) The above order is sought to be reviewed, mainly on the basis of the submission made by Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for the review applicant, that it was established before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the undertaking was duly filed on 04.08.2000 and, as such, there is no disobedience of the order, dated 03.08.2000, and, in any event, the Supreme Court directed the High Court that the order, dated 03.08.2000, is to be reviewed and, therefore, the review applicant cannot be proceeded with the contempt proceedings, as the order, dated 03.08.2000, was no more in existence.
(ii) In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to some of the circumstances, pointed out by the learned counsel for CMDA. The said circumstances are as follows :
(a) On 03.08.2000, in C.M.P.No.1009 of 2000, the Division Bench permitted the petitioner, namely, Kumaran Silks Trade Limited to make any further construction in accordance with the approved plan. He should not construct in variation to the approved plan or violation of the rules and seek for ratification of the same. He must furnish an undertaking to the effect, that if any construction is found in variation or violation against the sanctioned plan, he will demolish the same at his own risk and cost. CMDA is also permitted to take any action, for violation by the review applicant.
(b) On 04.08.2000, the review applicant stated in the undertaking that "I would like to hereby undertake to put up my construction at Door No.67, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai, as per the approved plan dated 27.03.2000 and the revised plan submitted by me on 19.07.2000."
(c) On 08.08.2000, since there was a violation, Demolition Notice was issued by CMDA to the review applicant, for taking action, as permitted by the High Court's order, dated 03.08.2000.
(d) On 28.08.2000, CMDA issued a letter to the review applicant, stating that "you have not furnished any undertaking as per the orders of the High Court, whereas you are progressing with the construction, even after High Court's order, which was verified by site inspection on 21.08.2000. Therefore, you are directed to furnish an undertaking as per the High Court's order, dated 03.08.2000, failing which the authority will be at liberty to demolish the construction."
(e) On 31.08.2000, Demolition Notice under Sections 56 and 85 of the Act was issued, as, on inspection, it was found that apart from ground floor and three floors as per the approved plan, fourth, fifth and sixth floors were constructed unauthorisedly.
(f) On 11.09.2000, CMDA sent a letter, stating that deviated unauthorised construction, under any circumstances, will not be approved.
(g) On 14.09.2000, CMDA sent a letter, rejecting the revised plan, submitted by the review applicant, dated 25.07.2000.
(h) On 18.09.2000, CMDA sent a letter to the contemner, stating that "in spite of the notices dated 06.07.2000, 08.08.2000, and 31.08.2000 and subsequent to the orders of the Hon'ble Court, the premises were inspected on 21.08.2000 and 29.08.2000 and it was found that you are proceeding with unauthorised construction of fifth and sixth floors. Your act of proceeding with the construction in contravention of planning permission is tantamount to not only non-compliance of the directions issued, but also a wanton and wilful disobedience of the Hon'ble High Court's orders", with a further request to stop construction forthwith.
(i) On 28.09.2000, CMDA made an inspection and found construction of seventh floor, as unauthorised.
(j) On 31.10.2000, the review applicant submitted a proposal for regularisation of deviated construction with regard to basement, ground floor plus three floors and also for ongoing unauthorised construction of fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
(k) On 02.03.2001, the Contempt Application against the review applicant was allowed, imposing a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with a further direction to demolish the unauthorised and deviated construction, made after 03.08.2000.
(iii) The above details, given by the learned counsel for CMDA, would indicate that the review applicant did not care to file an undertaking before CMDA in accordance with the order of this Court, dated 03.08.2000.
(iv) As discussed above, we have held that the order, dated 03.08.2000, is perfectly justified and there is no ground made out for review. Of course, it is stated that the undertaking was given to CMDA on 04.08.2000. But, the same is disputed by CMDA. However, it is to be stated that even assuming that the undertaking was filed on 04.08.2000 itself, the contents of the undertaking would show that they were not in accordance with the directions issued by this Court on 03.08.2000. On the other hand, the said undertaking, dated 04.08.2000, given by the review applicant, would indicate that he would make construction as per the approved plan as well as the revised plan, dated 19.07.2000. This was not the undertaking, which was directed to be given. When the matter was argued and the order was passed on 03.08.2000 in the main matter, namely, Writ Appeal, it was not represented by the counsel for the review applicant that he would give an undertaking that he would make construction as per the revised plan submitted on 19.07.2000. The order passed on 03.08.2000 would clearly indicate that the review applicant had to file an undertaking on 04.08.2000, to the effect that he would make construction only in accordance with the approved plan. Further, it was made clear that he should not violate the said undertaking and construct further and thereafter seek for ratification. Despite this direction, he has made unauthorised construction, namely, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh floors, in deviation to the sanctioned plan and asked for ratification. Hence, the order, dated 02.03.2001, holding that the review applicant is guilty of contempt is perfectly justified, as there is no error apparent on the face of the record.
(v) In the light of the principle that a contemner ought not to be permitted to enjoy the fruits of his contempt, this Court correctly directed the contemner to demolish the construction, made subsequent to 03.08.2000, within a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.
(vi) As indicated above, there is no error apparent on the face of the record of the order, dated 02.03.2001. As correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, we do not see any bona fides in the act of the contemner, in continuing the construction, in violation of the rules and also the orders of this Court, without showing any respect or regard to the orders of this Court. Therefore, there is no reason to review the order, dated 02.03.2001.
16. In the light of the peculiar circumstances, this Court is constrained to direct the respondents/authorities to demolish the unauthorised constructions, made by the review applicant, in violation of the rules and in variation to the sanctioned plan, subsequent to 03.08.2000, without any further delay.
17. Review Applications are dismissed. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.17119 of 2000 and W.A.M.P.No.4582 of 2002 are closed.
dixit [VSANT 7882] rtrere