Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 325 (AP)

Meena Kumari v. State of A. P.

2023-02-06

RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the writ petitioners in the writ petition No.17520 of 2020. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri had submitted that he had instructions from the petitioners to appear and argue on their behalf and that he shall file Vakalat within two days. He was permitted to argue on the said representation. 2. Sri Abhay Siddnath Mootha, learned counsel on record for the petitioners was also heard who had adopted the arguments of Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri. 3. Also heard Sri C. Suman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. 4. Perused the material on record. 5. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have questioned the Notice/proceedings in R.C.U.C.No.2/2020/WPRS/188, dated /08/2020 issued by the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District (in short, V.M.C) directing the petitioners to remove the deviations in construction of the building as indicated in the notice/proceedings within the specified time, failing which it was provided that those deviations shall be removed/pulled down by the authorities of the V.M.C and the incidental costs thereof shall be recovered from the petitioners. 6. The petitioners further prayed to stay all further proceedings including the demolition of the petitioners" building, and to restrain the V.M.C from stopping the petitioners from raising further construction pursuant to the impugned notice proceedings. 7. This Court granted the interim order dtd. 28/9/2020 which reads as under:- "Post on 30/9/2020. Till such time, status quo as on today shall be maintained in respect of the construction of the building in dispute. Further, the respondent authorities shall not take any steps for demolition. Meanwhile, learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation shall get instructions in the matter." 8. It is evident that this court by order dtd. 28/9/2020 directed both the parties to maintain status quo, existing as on that date in respect of the construction of the building in dispute and further the respondent authorities were directed not to take any steps for demolition upto 30/9/2020. On 13/10/2020, the interim order was extended till 20/10/2020. 9. It is evident that this court by order dtd. 28/9/2020 directed both the parties to maintain status quo, existing as on that date in respect of the construction of the building in dispute and further the respondent authorities were directed not to take any steps for demolition upto 30/9/2020. On 13/10/2020, the interim order was extended till 20/10/2020. 9. In the present writ petition and in W.P.No.17881 of 2020 filed by Smt Monika Solanki with respect to different building in the same campus for which also the proceedings were initiated by issuing the notice in R.C.U.C.No.4/2020/WPRS/188, dated /08/2020, on 22/10/2020, 24/11/2020, 8/12/2020, 22/12/2020, 22/1/2021, 5/2/2021, 23/2/2021, 23/3/2021, 30/3/2021, 20/4/2021, 22/9/2021, 29/9/2021, 4/10/2021, 22/10/2021, the common orders were passed. Both the writ petitions were being taken up together. 10. Sri C. Subodh, the learned Advocate Commissioner, hereinafter referred as the 1st Advocate Commissioner, appointed vide order dtd. 6/10/2020 in W.P.No.1881 of 2020, submitted his report dtd. 19/10/2020. 11. On 22/10/2020, this Court passed the following order:- "The report of the Advocate Commissioner was filed in this Court along with sketch. This Court has posted the matter today to hear the objections of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the municipal corporation. Petitioners counsel has made some legal and factual submissions which in the opinion of this court merit further hearing. As the vacation is intervening from tomorrow and as the report along with sketch indicates that there are deviations, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners should be directed to completely halt all further activity and / or construction of the building in the site till 5/11/2020. Learned counsels are given an opportunity to file their written objections, if any, to the Advocate Commissioner's report and the sketch. They are also given liberty to argue on the legal aspects. Respondents are directed to depute a responsible official two times during this intervening vacation period to check any progress of the work in the site. They shall not take action on any constructions made and they shall bring the same to the notice of this Court on 5/11/2020. List on 5/11/2020". 12. From the order dtd. Respondents are directed to depute a responsible official two times during this intervening vacation period to check any progress of the work in the site. They shall not take action on any constructions made and they shall bring the same to the notice of this Court on 5/11/2020. List on 5/11/2020". 12. From the order dtd. 22/10/2020, the followings become evident: 1) this court clearly observed after perusal of the Advocate Commissioner's report along with sketch, that "there are deviations" and directed the petitioners to completely halt all further activity and/or construction of the building in the site till 5/11/2020". 2) this Court granted opportunity to the learned counsels to file written objections, if any, to the Advocate Commissioner's report and the sketch, and 3) the respondents were directed to depute responsible official two times during the intervening vacation period to check any progress of the work in the site but providing further that they shall not take action on any constructions made and they shall bring the same to the notice of the Court on the date fixed. 13. Thereafter, this Court, in its order dtd. 22/12/2020, observed that "it is a very contemptuous matter, which is being argued virtually on daily basis". 14. On 22/9/2021, this court passed the following order: "When the matter is called in the morning, learned counsel for the petitioners has categorically stated that they have stopped the construction and requested further time for filing counter to the implead petition proposed by the third parties. On the other hand, learned counsel for the proposed parties, brought notice of this court about the construction activities of the petitioners. This Court directed the standing counsel to get instructions with regard to the present status of the building, and the matter is passed over. Again, the matter is called in the afternoon, standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, on instructions, submitted that a report was submitted by the learned advocate commissioner, after filing the report, the petitioners has constructed one more floor and even as on today, the construction activities are going on in the subject site. In view of the above statement, the standing counsel is directed to file a report along with required photographs, and even if permission is granted to the proposed parties, they are at liberty to file any evidence with regard to the construction. Post on 29/9/2021." 15. In view of the above statement, the standing counsel is directed to file a report along with required photographs, and even if permission is granted to the proposed parties, they are at liberty to file any evidence with regard to the construction. Post on 29/9/2021." 15. It is evident from the order dtd. 22/9/2021 that in view of the rival submissions, on the one hand by the petitioners" counsel that the petitioners had stopped the construction but on the other hand, the construction activity by the petitioners was brought to notice of the court, by the learned counsel for the implead petitioners, this court directed the learned standing counsel to get instructions with regard to the status of the building as on that date, fixing the matter for afternoon, when it was informed to the court, on instructions, that the petitioners had constructed one more floor and even as on that date, the construction activities were going on in the subject site. This court directed the learned standing counsel to file report along with required photographs. 16. The 2nd respondent, Commissioner of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation filed his affidavit dtd. 6/10/2021 of his personal inspection of the building, inter alia deposing that the petitioners violated the order of the Hon'ble High Court and proceeding with the construction by way of constructing one more additional floor (third floor) over sanctioned stilt plus ground plus two floors. It was clearly mentioned that the petitioners have not maintained the status quo order of this court and raised constructions without taking care of the orders of this Court. 17. On 25/10/2021 this Court passed the following order: "Initially after hearing both the parties, this Court has granted interim order and the same has been extended time and again. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents brought to the notice of this court that inspite of granting specific direction by this Court with the construction, they have constructed one more floor. Considering the said submissions, this Court vide its order dtd. 22/9/2021 has directed the 2nd respondent to enquire and submit a further report. Accordingly, he submitted a report along with required photographs. On perusal of the same, it clearly establishes that the petitionerss have proceeded with further construction contrary to the directions of this Court. Considering the said submissions, this Court vide its order dtd. 22/9/2021 has directed the 2nd respondent to enquire and submit a further report. Accordingly, he submitted a report along with required photographs. On perusal of the same, it clearly establishes that the petitionerss have proceeded with further construction contrary to the directions of this Court. Though the report was served on the learned counsel for the petitionerss on 22/10/2020, today at the time of arguments he has stated that he has no instructions about the construction made by the petitionerss contrary to the orders of this Court. Considering the said submissions left with no option, this Court is directing the petitionerss to appear before the Court on 1/11/2021 to submit their explanation. Post on 1/11/2021 along with W.P.No.1195 of 2021 for appearance of petitioners and registry is directed to serve a notice through special messenger to petitioners and learned counsel for petitioners is also directed to inform the same to the petitioners." 18. It is evident from the order dtd. 25/10/2021 that on perusal of the report dtd. 6/10/2021 along with photographs submitted, this court observed in clear words that the petitioners (petitioners of W.P.Nos.17881 of 2020 and 17520 of 2020) have proceeded with further construction contrary to the directions of this Court, and directed those petitioners to appear before the court on the date fixed to submit the explanation. 19. On 2/3/2022 again it was brought to the notice of this Court that despite the order passed by this Court not to proceed with the constructions the petitioners were proceeding with the construction. Consequently, this Court passed the following order dtd. 2/3/2022:- "It is brought to the notice of this court that despite the order passed by this Court "not to proceed with the construction", the petitioners is proceeding with the construction. Hence, appearance of the petitioners is inevitable. The petitioners has not appeared before this Court today as per the order 2/11/2021 of this Court. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioners to appear before this court on the next date of hearing. Accordingly, the petitioners is directed to appear before this Court on 7/3/2022 to explain as to why action should not be taken against him for proceeding with the construction inspite of the directions of this Court vide order dtd. 2/11/2021. Post this matter on 7/3/2022." 20. This Court vide order dtd. Accordingly, the petitioners is directed to appear before this Court on 7/3/2022 to explain as to why action should not be taken against him for proceeding with the construction inspite of the directions of this Court vide order dtd. 2/11/2021. Post this matter on 7/3/2022." 20. This Court vide order dtd. 2/3/2022 thus directed the petitioners to appear to explain as to why action should not be taken against them for proceeding with the construction. 21. On 7/3/2022, the petitioners appeared. This Court again directed the petitioners not to proceed with construction any further in the subject property. 22. The order dtd. 7/3/2022 is reproduced as under:- "The petitioners appeared before this Court as directed by this court on 2/3/2022, and thereafter, their presence is dispensed with for the present. The petitioners are hereby directed not to proceed with constructions any further in the subject property. Post this matter on 23/3/2022." 23. On 3/11/2022, it was represented by Sri V. Sai Kumar, the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, that inspite of the interim orders/status quo orders, the petitioners were raising construction, whereas it was submitted by Sri P.A. Seshu, appearing for the petitioners, on that date, that no construction was being raised. 24. In view of the above rival submissions with respect to the status of the construction, this Court directed that the 1st respondent/Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, shall ensure that the interim orders of this Court are not violated and on the spot no further construction takes place. The respondent No.1 was also directed to submit the compliance report before the next date. 25. The order dtd. 3/11/2022 is reproduced as under: "W.P.Nos.17881/2020, 17520/2020 and 1195/2021 Sri P. A. Seshu, learned counsel for the petitioners, seeks adjournment on the ground that senior counsel will appear and argue the matters. 2. On his request, list on 17/11/2022. 3. This Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo vide interim order dtd. 6/10/2020 in W.P.No.17881/2020, vide interim order dtd. 28/9/2020 in W.P.No.17520/2020 and directed the respondent authorities not to demolish the petitioners" building vide interim order dtd. 11/1/2021 in W.P.No.1195/2021. 4. Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submits that in spite of status quo orders, the petitioners are raising construction. The contempt petition was also filed and is pending. 5. 28/9/2020 in W.P.No.17520/2020 and directed the respondent authorities not to demolish the petitioners" building vide interim order dtd. 11/1/2021 in W.P.No.1195/2021. 4. Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submits that in spite of status quo orders, the petitioners are raising construction. The contempt petition was also filed and is pending. 5. Sri P. A. Seshu, on the basis of the instructions received from the petitioners, submits that no construction is being raised pursuant to the interim orders. 6. In view of the contentious issues raised in the writ petitions, this Court by order dtd. 6/10/2020 also appointed an Advocate-Commissioner who has submitted the report on record. There is also serious dispute with respect to raising of construction, as the petitioners" contention is that the interim order of status quo is being followed, but it is contended by the unofficial respondents that the interim order is being violated and the construction is still going on. 7. Under the circumstances, the 1st respondent shall ensure that the interim orders granted by this Court, as noted above, are not violated and on the spot no further construction takes place. 8. Let the copy of this order and copies of interim orders dtd. 6/10/2020 in W.P.No.17881/2020, dtd. 28/9/2020 in W.P.No.17520/2020 and dtd. 11/1/2021 in W.P.No.1195/2021 be sent to the 1st respondent- Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi at Amaravathi, who shall submit the compliance report before the date fixed. List all these matters on 17/11/2022." 26. This Court vide next order dtd. 17/11/2022, appointed Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned Advocate, as an Advocate Commissioner (hereinafter referred as 2nd Advocate Commissioner) to visit the site in question and submit the report with respect to the status of the construction of the building in site as also if the construction was continuing or continued upto recent time. 27. The relevant part of the order dtd. 17/11/2022 is reproduced as under:- "W.P.Nos.17881 and 17520 of 2020 "................................................................................. 2. The 1st respondent "" Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi at Amaravathi was directed to submit the compliance report before the date fixed. 3. The compliance report has not been submitted. 4. Sri Y. Kanakalingeswara Rao, learned AGP, representing respondent No.1, submits that he has instructions to say that the Commissioner Vijayawada Municipal Corporation was asked by the 1st respondent vide Memo No.1896344/M2/2022, dtd. 3. The compliance report has not been submitted. 4. Sri Y. Kanakalingeswara Rao, learned AGP, representing respondent No.1, submits that he has instructions to say that the Commissioner Vijayawada Municipal Corporation was asked by the 1st respondent vide Memo No.1896344/M2/2022, dtd. 10/11/2022, to furnish compliance report to the Government which report is still awaited. The Advocate-Commissioner was also directed by the 1st respondent to submit the compliance report to the Govt. Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department by 12/11/2022 as well, without fail. 5. Sri Y. Kanakalingeswara Rao, learned AGP, also appearing for the Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, submits that he has not received any compliance report neither from the 1st respondent nor from the Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. 6. Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, represents that in spite of the interim order of status quo granted previously, the construction has not been stopped and in spite of the order passed by this Court on 3/11/2022 neither the compliance report has been submitted nor the construction has been stopped and it is still going on. 7. In view of the above, Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned Advocate, present in the Court, is appointed as an AdvocateCommissioner to visit the site in question today itself at 5 p.m and to submit the report with respect to the construction status of building in site in question and as to it is continuing, or continued upto recent time, as per his inspection. He shall also take photograph and videograph of the site and the building in question with the assistance of some photographer and videographer to accompany him to the site in question. The Advocate-Commissioner to ascertain the aforesaid, shall have right to enter into the premises/building in question. 8. In case the Advocate-Commissioner feels difficulty in executing the commission work, pursuant to this order or obstruction is raised by anyone, he shall be entitled to take police aid by contacting the Assistant Commissioner of Police, in writing to that effect, upon which, the police protection shall be provided to him immediately and in such a case the AdvocateCommissioner in his wisdom shall complete the inspection by carrying it to next date as well. 9. 9. As the Advocate-Commissioner is being appointed considering the request of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, the Advocate-Commissioner fee and expenses shall be borne by the 4th respondent and paid to the Advocate-Commissioner. 10 The fee of the Advocate-Commissioner is fixed at Rs.10, 000.00 (Rupees ten thousand only) for the commission work, and the miscellaneous expenses, as may be incurred would be specified by him, to be paid by the 4th respondent. 11. Since this order is passed in the presence of the learned counsels for the parties, the Advocate Commissioner is not required to issue any notice or intimation of his visit to any party. 12. List on 23/11/2022. 13. The 1st respondent "" Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi at Amaravati and the Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, shall appear on 23/11/2022 personally and to explain as to why the compliance report has not been submitted in spite of order dtd. 3/11/2022. 14. The Registry shall serve copy of this order along with copies of the relevant pages, viz., cause title page and prayer of writ petitions in WP.Nos.17881 and 17520 of 2020 at free of cost to the Advocate-Commissioner forthwith to enable him to know the property to be visited for inspection. 15. List all these matters on 23/11/2022." 28. Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, the 2nd Advocate Commissioner has submitted his report of inspection dtd. 18/11/2022. The relevant part of his report is being reproduced as under: "In my inspection I have noticed the following aspects: 1. Evidently, "Site in question" is comprising of Stilt, Ground Floor, 1st Floor, 2nd Floor, 3rd Floor and above the 3rd Floor there is a Water tank. 2. Pertinently, when I reached "Site in question" on 17/11/2022 and 18/11/2022, on ground no construction works were going on. 3. Importantly, I have noticed some sanitary plastic pipes, bunch of Iron rods, polarizing of sand and also boxes containing of Tiles at Stilt Floor as well as some Tiles were stored in the middle of the Stilt Floor. 4. The upper Floor Rooms are with polarizing of Sand, Gravel (Kankara). And in some places Cement Bags are existing. Some walls are in finished stage without having white wash and colours. 5. I have also noticed that, in one of the floors cement bags (Priya Cement Company), Sand and Gravel are existing. 4. The upper Floor Rooms are with polarizing of Sand, Gravel (Kankara). And in some places Cement Bags are existing. Some walls are in finished stage without having white wash and colours. 5. I have also noticed that, in one of the floors cement bags (Priya Cement Company), Sand and Gravel are existing. And also I have noticed one hoe (Paara) and Tapi ( Working Tools). Further on floor there are marks which reveals the mixing of sand, gravel with cement components. (It seems to be recent marks). 6. In some of the places plastering works depicts recent patches. 7. The Electricity and Plumber works are in incomplete position. 8. I have noticed that all the Stair Case Works are partially completed for all the Floors. 9. I have noticed some unfinished Ceiling Roof, unfinished floorings in the "Site in question". 10. The Provision of Lift is existing but "Lift" was not affixed. 11. The Top Floor contains Water Tank along with pipe connections etc and the same is in working condition." 29. A perusal of the report of the 2nd Advocate Commissioner thus shows, inter alia: 1) that the site in question is comprising of stilt, ground floor, first floor, 2nd floor, 3rd floor and above the third floor there is a water tank, 2) that he noticed that there were recent marks of recent activities relating to the construction though on 17/11/2022 and 18/11/2022 the dates of inspection, on ground no construction work was going on. 30. The 1st respondent filed compliance report dtd. 22/11/2022 on affidavit of Special Chief Secretary to the Government. 31. In the compliance report it is inter alia submitted that the petitioners raised further constructions including the construction of the 3rd floor and the water tank inspite of the interim order of this Court directing to maintain status quo. The respondent No.2 served notice to stop the construction but inspite thereof the petitioners did not stop and continued the constructions. The petitioners constructed 3rd floor and the water tank over the permitted floor violating the interim order. It is further submitted that with respect to the violations, a report dtd. 6/10/2021, was filed with photographs in this court but the respondent No.2 did not take any further action as the order dtd. 22/10/2020 directed not to take any action but only to report the matter to the Court. It is further submitted that with respect to the violations, a report dtd. 6/10/2021, was filed with photographs in this court but the respondent No.2 did not take any further action as the order dtd. 22/10/2020 directed not to take any action but only to report the matter to the Court. In the compliance report, it is also submitted that after the order dtd. 3/11/2022 no further constructions have been made by the petitioners, but the petitioners have clearly violated the order of this court inspite of the effort of the 2nd respondent to ensure compliance with this court's order . 32. On 23/11/2022, this court passed inter alia the following order:- "..................................................................................... 7. By order dtd. 17/11/2022, Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned Advocate, was appointed as the Advocate Commissioner. He has submitted the report in sealed cover which is opened in Court, and is taken on record. 8. As per the Advocate Commissioner's report, the works which he noticed and as reported in his report, reveals that in recent time there was construction activity, though on the date of his visit dtd. 17/11/2022 and 18/11/2022, no construction was going on. 9. On the request of the learned counsel for the petitionerss, another copy of the compliance report/affidavit of respondent No.1 been provided to him in Court. 10. The Registry shall serve a copy of the report of Advocate Commissioner (Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem), to the learned counsels appearing for the petitionerss as also for the respondents. 11. The petitionerss as also the respondents may file objections, if any, against the Advocate Commissioner's report within a period of ten (10) days. 12. Prima facie, the petitionerss have raised certain constructions in violation of the interim orders granted on their petition. 13. The Court is prima facie satisfied with the compliance report submitted by respondent No.1. 14. The officers present need not appear again, unless called for by specific order. 15. List on 7/12/2022. 16. On the next date of hearing, the petitionerss shall address the Court on the point as to why the constructions raised violating the Court's order, be not directed to be demolished. 17. Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of listing." 33. By order dtd. 23/11/2022, time was granted to the learned counsels for the parties to file objections, if any, against the report of the 2nd Advocate Commissioner. 17. Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of listing." 33. By order dtd. 23/11/2022, time was granted to the learned counsels for the parties to file objections, if any, against the report of the 2nd Advocate Commissioner. This Court observed that prima facie, the petitioners have raised certain constructions violating the interim order and provided further that on the next date of hearing the petitioners shall address the court on the point as to why the constructions raised, violating the court's order be not directed to be demolished. 34. The petitioners have filed objections against the report dtd. 18/11/2022 of the 2nd Advocate Commissioner, on 19/12/2022. 35. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the building at the subject site is still under construction and is yet to reach the stage of completion. Consequently the building material including the sanitary pipe etc., was available on the site, but there were no construction activity at present. There was no evidence of any recent construction. The marks of mixing of cement, sand etc., were old one and no new construction took place after August, 2021. 36. Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the interim orders were granted for a limited period and extended from time to time till April, 2021. 37. The 2nd Advocate Commissioner's report that the present status of the construction, comprises of stilt, ground floor, first floor, second floor, third floor and above the third floor the water tank, has not been disputed by the petitioners in the objections. 38. When the report of the 2nd Advocate Commissioner and the affidavit dtd. 6/10/2021 of the 2nd respondent V. Prasanna Venkatesh, S/o. Venkataraman, Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District, which was filed pursuant to the order of this Court dtd. 22/9/2021, are considered, it is clear that the petitioners have raised further constructions and constructed the third floor, with same set backs, in deviation of the plan for the permitted floors to which impugned notice was issued, as also the water tank above the third floor, inspite of the clear orders of this Court "to maintain status quo" as also "not to make any further constructions". 39. The 2nd respondent in his affidavit dtd. 28/9/2020, in para Nos.6 & 7, deposed as follows: "6. 39. The 2nd respondent in his affidavit dtd. 28/9/2020, in para Nos.6 & 7, deposed as follows: "6. The petitioner has violated the order of the Hon'ble High Court and proceeding with the construction by way of constructing one more additional floor (3rd floor) over sanctioned Stilt+G+2 floors. 7. In obedience to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, I (Respondent 2) have personally attended for inspection of the buildings under construction and it is noticed that the building owner Smt. Monika Solanki has not maintained the status-quo, but proceeded with the construction of one more additional floor over Stilt+G+2 floors building. This is completely violating the sanctioned plan of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and also after submission of the report by the advocate commissioner before the Hon'ble High Court without taking any care of the report by the advocate commissioner before the Hon'ble High Court without any taking care of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. (The photos and video graph recorded by this office are hereby with enclosed for favour of brining the matter to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court.) 40. Thus, it is clearly established that the 3rd floor construction and water tank was raised unauthorisedly and in clear violation and disobedience of the interim order passed by this Court directing "to maintain status quo", as also "not to raise any further construction". 41. Now the Court proceeds to consider the submission of Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri that the construction of the 3rd floor and the water tank was made, when the interim order was not operative, which was extended till April, 2021 and it was thereafter the construction of the 3rd floor commenced which the petitioners could proceed with. 42. A perusal of the order sheet of the writ petition shows that on 28/9/2020, the parties were directed to maintain status quo as existing on that date with reference to demolition and further construction on 13/10/2020. On 13/10/2020, the interim order was extended. On 22/10/2020, the petitioners were directed to completely halt all further activity and/or construction of the building in the site till 5/11/2020. On 13/10/2020, the interim order was extended. On 22/10/2020, the petitioners were directed to completely halt all further activity and/or construction of the building in the site till 5/11/2020. The respondents were also directed to depute a responsible officer two times during the intervening vacation period to check any progress of work in the site, with further direction to the respondents that they shall not take action on any construction made and shall bring the same to the notice of the court. Thereafter continuously on 22/1/2021, 5/2/2021, on 23/1/2021, and on 20/4/2021, the interim order was extended till 28/4/2021. Later on also the interim order was extended from time to time, though on few dates there is no extension but as on date also the interim order is operative, having been extended on many previous dates on 7/3/2022, 23/11/2022, 7/12/2022, 8/12/2022 and 20/12/2022. The interim orders were never vacated. 43. It appears that the petitioners after verifying the order sheet of the writ petition have taken such a plea that the 3rd floor construction commenced when the interim order was not operative. Such a plea is only after thought. There is nothing on record, except the affidavit of the petitioners to submit the date of construction trying to cover during the period there is no order of extension, but the report of the 2nd Advocate Commissioner dtd. 21/11/2022 clearly mentions, also, about "the recent activity of construction work". The affidavit of the 2nd respondent of his personal inspection dtd. 6/10/2021 also clearly states that the petitioners are proceeding with the construction. Besides, on many other dates it was informed to the court that the petitioners were continuing with the constructions. 44. In view of the aforesaid, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the construction were raised at a time when there was no interim order, is rejected. 45. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the affidavits on record including those of the petitioners, the advocate commissioner's report, the Court is constrained to observe that the petitioners consider them above the law. They have no respect for Rule of Law and for the court's specific restraint orders: i) "to maintain status quo" with reference to further construction (dtd. They have no respect for Rule of Law and for the court's specific restraint orders: i) "to maintain status quo" with reference to further construction (dtd. 28/9/2020), ii) directing the petitioners to halt all further construction activity and for construction of the building (date 22/10/2020), iii) directing not to proceed with constructions any further (date 7/3/2022). Not only the above, this court had to pass the orders: i) for deputing the responsible official of the respondent Corporation, to check any progress work (date 22/10/2020), ii) for the appearance of the petitioners to submit explanation, after observing that the report dtd. 6/10/2021 clearly establishes that the petitioners have proceeded with further constructions contrary to the court's direction, (25/10/2021), iii) for appearance of the petitioners to explain as to why action should not be taken for proceeding of the petitioners with the construction inspite of the court's direction (dtd. 2/3/2022) and finally, iv) the order dtd. 23/12/2022 directing, to address the Court on the point as to why the constructions raised violating the court's order be not directed to be demolished. 46. In Lalita Sharanji vs. Deoki Devi, (2018) 14 SCC 337 . despite the interim orders one Deoki Devi raised the construction, and the contempt petition was filed, though initially she contested the contempt proceedings but later on admitted that she had carried out the constructions and also submitted that the offending constructions had been demolished and gave an undertaking not to raise any further constructions but again she raised further constructions, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed and held that she had no respect for law of the land and she willfully disobeyed the orders passed by the Highest Court of the land. She did not care for the rule of law. The punishment for committing contempt was imposed, which was however suspended on the condition that she would comply with the direction given earlier to remove the entire construction at her own cost. 47. Here, it is apt to refer All Bengal Excise Licensees" Association Vs. Raghabendra Singh and others, (2007) 11 SCC 734. The punishment for committing contempt was imposed, which was however suspended on the condition that she would comply with the direction given earlier to remove the entire construction at her own cost. 47. Here, it is apt to refer All Bengal Excise Licensees" Association Vs. Raghabendra Singh and others, (2007) 11 SCC 734. wherein during the course of the hearing of the contempt application, the matter was adjourned by the High Court to enable the respondents therein to consider whether the contemnors were prepared to cancel the lottery held on 20, 21 and 22/3/2005 in violation of the Court's orders and on such adjourned date, the contemnors did not agree to cancel the lottery. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that under such circumstances, the plea of mistake of understanding the prohibitory order could not at all be accepted. It was further observed that "likewise, the High Court also was not justified in not directing the contemnors to cancel the lottery held on 20, 21 and 22/3/2005 in violation of the solemn orders passed by the very same Judge and in view of the clear finding of the Court that they had acted in clear violation of the said interim order made by the High Court". 48. In All Bengal Excise Licensees" Association (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "a party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof. By pleading misunderstanding and thereafter retaining the advantage gained in breach of the order of the Court and the wrong perpetrated by the respondent-contemnors in contumacious disregard of the order of the High Court should not be permitted to hold good". 49. In paras 25, 27, 28 and 38 of All Bengal Excise Licensees" Association (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "25. Even assuming that there was any scope for bona fide misunderstanding on the part of the respondents, once it was found that the respondent had disobeyed the specific order passed earlier by the Court, the High Court should have directed the contemnors to undo the wrong committed by them which was done in clear breach of the order of the Court by restoring the status quo ante by cancelling the lottery wrongfully held by them. The learned Judge found that the respondent-contemnors had held the lottery in violation of the Court's order and the results of the said lottery should not be permitted to take effect and should be treated as unlawful and invalid for the purpose of grant of license. The learned Single Judge for the purpose of upholding the majesty of law and the sanctity of the solemn order of the court of law which cannot be violated by the executive authority either deliberately or unwittingly should have set aside the lottery held and should not have allowed the respondents to gain a wrongful advantage thereby. 27. Even assuming that there was any scope for bona fide misunderstanding on the part of the respondents, once it was found that the respondent had disobeyed the specific order passed earlier by the Court, the High Court should have directed the contemnors to undo the wrong committed by them which was done in clear breach of the order of the Court by restoring the status quo ante by cancelling the lottery wrongfully held by them. The learned Judge found that the respondent-contemnors had held the lottery in violation of the Court's order and the results of the said lottery should not be permitted to take effect and should be treated as unlawful and invalid for the purpose of grant of license. The learned Single Judge for the purpose of upholding the majesty of law and the sanctity of the solemn order of the court of law which cannot be violated by the executive authority either deliberately or unwittingly should have set aside the lottery held and should not have allowed the respondents to gain a wrongful advantage thereby. 28. In our opinion, a party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof. By pleading misunderstanding and thereafter retaining the said advantage gained in breach of the order of the Court and the wrong perpetrated by the respondent-contemnors in contumacious disregard of the order of the High Court should not be permitted to hold good. By pleading misunderstanding and thereafter retaining the said advantage gained in breach of the order of the Court and the wrong perpetrated by the respondent-contemnors in contumacious disregard of the order of the High Court should not be permitted to hold good. In our opinion, the impugned order passed by the High court is not sustainable in law and should not be allowed to operate as a precedent and the wrong perpetrated by the respondent-contemnors in utter disregard of the order of the High Court should not be permitted to hold good. 38. In the instant case, the respondents have conducted the auction quite contrary to and in violation of an injunction order passed by the High Court. Courts have held in a catena of decisions that where in violation of a restraint order or an injunction order against a party, something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the Court as a policy to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. In our opinion, the inherent power will not only be available under Sec. 151 CPC as available to us in such a case but it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interest of justice and public interest." 50. In Meera Chauhan vs. Harsh Bishnoi and another, (2007) 12 SCC 201 . the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is also well settled that when the parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the stay order, the court can by exercise of its inherent power put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authorities to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order. 51. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of Meera Chauhan (supra) read as under: "18. 51. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of Meera Chauhan (supra) read as under: "18. At the same time, it is also well settled that when parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the said order the Court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order. 19. It is also well settled that when in the event of utter violation of the injunction order, the party forcibly dispossesses the other, the Court can order restoration of possession to the party wronged." 52. In Manohar Lal (dead) by L.Rs. vs. Ugrasen (dead) by LRs. and others, (2010) 11 SCC 557 . the Hon'ble Apex Court held that an order passed or action taken in disobedience of the court's order and violating the same would be illegal and nullity. It was also held that even a court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, in the event of coming to the conclusion that a breach of an order of restraint had taken place, may bring back the parties to the same position as if the order of injunction had not been violated. 53. In paragraphs 24 to 28 of Manohar Lal (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "24. In Mulraj Vs. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj, AIR 1967 SC 1386 . this Court considered the effect of action taken subsequent to passing of an interim order in its disobedience and held that any action taken in disobedience of the order passed by the Court would be illegal. Subsequent action would be a nullity. 25. In Surjit Singh Vs. Harbans Singh, AIR 1996 SC 135 . this Court while dealing with the similar issue held as under: "In defiance of the restraint order, the alienation/assignment was made. If we were to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy. Subsequent action would be a nullity. 25. In Surjit Singh Vs. Harbans Singh, AIR 1996 SC 135 . this Court while dealing with the similar issue held as under: "In defiance of the restraint order, the alienation/assignment was made. If we were to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy. When the Court intends a particular state of affairs to exist while it is in seisin of a lis, that state of affairs is not only required to be maintained, but it is presumed to exist till the Court orders otherwise. The Court, in these circumstances has the duty, as also the right, to treat the alienation/assignment as having not taken place at all for its purposes." 26. In All Bengal Excise Licensees Association Vs. Raghabendra Singh and Ors, AIR 2007 SC 1386 . this court held as under: "A party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof..... the wrong perpetrated by the respondents in utter disregard of the order of the High Court should not be permitted to hold good." 27. In Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Anr., AIR 1996 SC 2005 . this court after making reference to many of the earlier judgments held: "On principle that those who defy a prohibition ought not to be able to claim that the fruits of their defiance are good, and not tainted by the illegality that produced them." 28. In Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar Vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund, AIR 2008 SC 901 . this Court while dealing with the similar issues held that even a Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the event of coming to the conclusion that a breach to an order of restraint had taken place, may bring back the parties to the same position as if the order of injunction has not been violated". 54. In view of the law as laid down in the aforesaid judgments, in the facts of the present case, the constructions raised in violation and disobedience of the interim orders of this court cannot be permitted to remain in existence. 54. In view of the law as laid down in the aforesaid judgments, in the facts of the present case, the constructions raised in violation and disobedience of the interim orders of this court cannot be permitted to remain in existence. To uphold the majesty of law, the acts done by the petitioners in disobedience of the court's order are required to be undone. 55. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order and issues following directions: i) the respondents 1 and 2 shall demolish/remove the 3rd floor and the water tank above the third floor, of the petitioners" building in question. ii) the cost of the aforesaid demolition/removal work shall be at the cost of the petitioners to be recovered from them. iii) to enable the official respondents to implement this order, the interim orders granted earlier, in the writ petition, are vacated. iv) it is expected of the official respondents to take due care in implementing this order with respect to the 3rd floor and the water tank construction, so as to avoid any damage being caused to the rest of the building, but if any damage is caused, the official respondents shall not be responsible as the petitioners are only responsible for the present situation. v) if required, the respondents 1 and 2 shall take the police protection for implementing this order. vi) the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, N.T.R District (Krishna District) shall provide necessary police assistance to the respondents 1 and 2, if so requested, without delay. vii) the respondents 1 and 2 shall take necessary steps to comply this order and shall submit the compliance report by the next date. 56. It is clarified that this order is only with respect to the constructions raised during pendency of the writ petition in violation and disobedience of the orders passed by this Court, as indicated above. 57. The writ petition against the impugned notice would be heard after submission of the report of compliance of this order. 58. Let the copy of this order be sent to the respondent No.1 the State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi at Amaravati, Guntur District, and to the respondent No.2-the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District, represented by its Commissioner to ensure compliance and submit their respective reports by the next date of listing. 59. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi at Amaravati, Guntur District, and to the respondent No.2-the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District, represented by its Commissioner to ensure compliance and submit their respective reports by the next date of listing. 59. Let the copy of this order be also sent to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, N.T.R District (Krishna District). 60. List the matter on 27/2/2023.