Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. - (1.) PIL writ petition no. 304 of 2004 came to be filed in the High Court of Bombay at Panaji, Goa, assailing building violations committed by Hotel Menino Regency. On 25.10.2005, a Division Bench of the High Court highlighted the construction violations committed in the above hotel, and in order to restore the building to the prescribed norms, the High Court inter alia passed the following order: "6. As regards violation of fire norms and other breaches, we are of the view that these aspects shall be considered after the respondent no.4 removes the pillars from the front set back and restores the balconies as per the approved plan. Hence the Order: (i) As prayed, we grant 30 days time to the respondent no.4 for removal of pillars/columns and restoration of the balconies as per approved plan dated 1.3.2001. (ii) We direct the respondent no.4 to file an undertaking within 3 days from today that within 30 days from today, the pillars/columns within the front set back shall be removed and the balconies shall be restored in accord with the approved plans. (iii) The Member Secretary, Planning Development Authority of Goa and the Corporation of the City of Goa shall pass an appropriate order pursuant to the show cause notice issued to the respondent no.4 after hearing him within one month from today. The said authorities shall also consider the application for regularisation made by the respondent no.4 within the afore-directed time and place the said orders on record before this Court. (iv) The respondent no.4 may file his objections to the Site Inspection Report dated 15-2-2005 also within 30 days from today."
(2.) Consequent upon the liberty granted to the appellant, the appellant - Inacio Fernandes - the owner of hotel Menino Regency moved an application for regularisation of the unauthorised structures before the North Goa Planning and Development Authority. The said planning authority by an order dated 20.12.2005 passed the following regularisation order : "With reference to the above referred application submitted for regularisation of unauthorised development, it is stated herewith that the application was placed before the Authority meeting held on 8.12.2005 and was decided to regularise the unauthorised development subject to levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and with condition that the portion shown for demolition i.e. columns mentioned as decorative columns on ground floor and six rooms on fifth floor are to be demolished within a period of sixty days from the date of issue of approval order, and the construction has to be strictly in conformity with the approved plans. In view of the above, you are hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as penalty fee for regularization and for further action."
(3.) On account of the afore-stated regularization/compounding order, the appellant did not remove the structures constructed on the balconies. This action at the behest of the appellant was, prima facie, treated as constituting a violation of the undertaking given by the appellant to the High Court, to remove the balconies as per the approved plan dated 1.3.2001, within 30 days. It is therefore, that the High Court by the impugned order dated 22.2.2006 initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the appellant. This was done by the High Court since the High Court refused to discharge the appellant for the undertaking given by the appellant to the High Court on 28.10.2005, despite the regularization/compounding order.;