SHRI MEWALAL HIRALAL SHAHversusKALYAN-DOMBIVALI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THR. COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

          Digitally
          signed by
          RUSHIKESH
RUSHIKESH VISHNU
VISHNU    PATIL
PATIL     Date:
          2026.08.07
          18:33:28                                   1/3                  5 CP.350.2018.odt
          +0530



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 350 OF 2018

                       Mewalal Hiralal Shah                             .. Petitioner
                                            Versus
                       Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation
                       Through Its Commissioner and Ors.      .. Respondents
                                                           …
                       Mr. Gauresh Khandalekar a/w Ms Mansi Mhatre, for the
                       Petitioner.
                       Mr. Ketan Joshi, ‘B’ Panel Counsel, for the State.
                                                      …

                                           CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
                                                  MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

                                           DATED : 06th AUGUST, 2026

                       P.C:-


                       1.      The Contempt Petition is >led alleging disobedience of the
                       directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6592 of
                       2013, when the Petition was disposed of with a direction to
                       reconstruct the structure of the shop of the Petitioner, which
                       was damaged while demolishing the structure erected by
                       Respondent No. 10 on the site, which was illegal. The direction
                       issued speci>cally was to the following effect:

                                     “within a period of two months from the date of
                                demolition of the said structure, the >rst Respondent
                                shall reconstruct the structure of the shop of the
                                Petitioner as per the dimension set out in clause (d) of
                                paragraph 3 of the Petition.”




                       Rushikesh
                             2/3                   5 CP.350.2018.odt

2.     The Contempt Petition is >led based on the following
pleadings:

       In the Petition, in paragraph (d), the Petitioner has given
the description of the shop as “Shop No. 4- area 35 X 10 (350
Sq. Ft.) including varhandas, front and back, being situated in
CTS No. 4122 of Kalyan, District-Thane. The shop had an A.C.
sheet roof with a height in front and back 8.5 ft. and a height
12 ft. in the middle, with a brick masonry structure with a
wooden door in front.

3.     This Contempt Petition is >led alleging that the shop
which is constructed do not match the said speci>cations.
Therefore, we speci>cally asked the learned counsel for the
Petitioner to point out about his pleadings in the Contempt
Petition which would demonstrate that the Respondents have
violated the directions issued by this Court so as to construe
as contempt of the order of the Court, and our attention is
invited to the following pleading:


        “aa) The Petitioner states that in the meanwhile when
        reconstruction of the above said shop was in progress,
        he visited the site and it was revealed to the Petitioner
        that current area of the newly constructed shop was
        less than of the shop before demolition. Therefore the
        Petitioner continuously tried to contact one Mr. Dhute,
        of>cer of KDMC for making improvements in said Shop
        as it was before demolition but no steps were taken by
        the respondents, other concerned Of>cers and
        Contractor who is doing reconstruction of the said
        shop.”


       We persistently inquired with the learned counsel as to
what are the speci>cations of the newly constructed structure,

Rushikesh
                            3/3                5 CP.350.2018.odt

and the learned counsel is not able to provide any details
except stating that it is less than the shop which was earlier
standing. If this is the accusation on the basis of which the
Petitioner expect that we should initiate contempt action
against the Respondents, we refuse to do so, as for initiating an
action under the Contempt of Court Act, there ought to have
been a speci>c pleading by the Petitioner to the effect that
what is constructed is less than what was described by him in
clause (d) of the Writ Petition.

       The learned counsel also make a grievance about his
machinery being damaged, and we note that the order passed
by the Court had directed payment of compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- to the Petitioner, which amount the Petitioner
has already received. Apart from this, liberty was granted to
the Petitioner to >le a civil suit to recover compensation over
and above the amount granted under the Judgment and Order,
but we are informed that the Petitioner has not >led any such
proceedings.

4.     On hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner and
upon perusal of the pleadings, we are of the view that no case
is made out for initiating action against the Respondent-
Authorities for the alleged disobedience of the order passed by
this Court. Hence, we drop the Contempt proceedings.




(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.)               (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)




Rushikesh