' FAROOQ ALI CHANNA , J.---The applicant has filed this contempt application under sections 2 and 3 of Contempt Act, 1976 with the prayer to take action against Muhammad Hussain alias Siraj and Tazmir Asim, Director Building Control Authority, H.D.A, Hyderabad, as they violated the order of this court dated 17-8-2009 which is reproduced as under:- "The only grievance of the applicant's is that two rooms, which were constructed on the roof of the applicant's flats, have been demolished by the respondent No,1 on the construction of the respondent No,2, but their debris are still lying which is obstructing the free access of the applicants 'to their flats. The learned counsel for the respondent No,2 states that it is the duty of the respondent No,1 to remove such debris and that in case if such debris are not removed, the respondent No,2 itself will remove such debris within a period of one week and claim its costs from the respondent No,
1. The respondent No, l's Counsel states that debris have been removed.
' Be that as it may, in case the debris are still lying and obstructing the free access of the applicants to their respective flats, the respondent No,2 is directed to remove such debris within a period of one week and claim its costs from the respondent No,l. The report of compliance of this order be filed by the respondent No,2 immediately to the Additional Registrar of this Court with satisfaction of the applicants recorded on it."
' Before parting with the merits of the case, I may mention here that after hearing the arguments at some length and at initial stage of proceedings, learned counsel for the applicant was apprised that there appears no substance in the contempt application and if after complete hearing, the contempt application is found meritless, the same shall be dismissed with cost. However, learned counsel for the applicant despite clear warning insisted to proceed with the Contempt application and decide the same on merits.
2. The applicant in his application in hand has prayed for taking action against the proposed contemnors on the ground that they did not pay regard to the order of this Court referred to hereinabove and committed a wilful breach of a valid undertaking made by the Contemnor No,2 before this Court.
3. The Contemnor No,1 has filed objections denying the contents of application and stated that the order of this Court. Was complied with in letter and spirit and thereafter in the year 2010 the property belonging to his wife Mst. Fatima Zehra was sold to one Nisar Ali and such registered Sale Deed was executed in his favour. The above fact was in knowledge of the applicant that proposed Contemnor No,1 has no more concern with the said property but yet the applicant has filed this contempt application only to blackmail, harass and drag by filing frivolous proceedings against him.
4. The Contemnor No,2 also filed the objections denying the allegation of the applicant and has categorically stated that the applicant has filed this frivolous application with mala fide intention.
The true facts are that the respondent No,2 in C.F. i,e, Director Building Control, HAD demolished two rooms constructed on the subject property prior to the order of this Court dated 17-8-2009, however some debris were left at site therefore the applicant approached this Court for removal of said debris. This Court passed the order dated 17-8-2009 directing the respondent No,2 for removal of debris, which order was complied with in letter and spirit, debris were completely removed in presence of residents of locality and free access of the appellants to their flats was made clear, such mashirnama was prepared and compliance report was placed before the Additional Registrar of this Court, copy whereof has been produced along with the reply of contempt application.
5. I have gone through the compliance report made by respondent No,2 which reflects that the debris were removed within the stipulated period provided vide order dated 17-8-2009, such mashirnama was prepared which bears the signatures of the people of locality. The applicant after expiry of one week's time provided in the order dated 17-8-2009 for removal of debris remained mum till filing of contempt application on 13-10-2010 which manifest that the applicant was aware of each and every progress carried on for compliance of the order dated 17-8-2009 and was satisfied. Learned counsel for the applicant on query of this court has admitted that the proposed Coritemnor No,1 has sold his property in the year 2010, while confronted with the compliance report submitted by the Contemnor No,2 regarding the removal of debris as ordered by this Court learned counsel for the applicant has not controverted the same, however his contention is that the entire process for removal of debris was carried on in the absence of the applicant. It also appears from the affidavit of the applicant filed in support of the contempt application that two rooms were constructed on the roof out of which one was demolished by the respondent No,1 in compliance of the order whereas the second room is still available on the roof and the debris are left in the roof.
No such directions were passed by this court in the order dated 17-8-2009 directing the respondent No,2 to demolish the room constructed on the roof. The sole direction was for the removal of debris which was complied with.
6. Furthermore, in para No,6 of the affidavit the applicant has also admitted that the respondent No,1 sold the property to another person who has constructed 4th floor on the roof of third floor without the approved plan. Said construction is in utter disregard of the order of this Court.
Apparently the additional construction of 4th floor if any was carried on after the order dated 17-8- 2009 by newly purchaser of roof of third floor who neither was party in the Const. Petition nor any restraining order was passed by this court that no additional construction on the roof of third floor shall take place as such the proposed Contemnor No,1 has not disobeyed/violated the order of this court dated 17-8-2009 in any manner. It appears that filing of this contempt application is nothing but to cause harassm ent to the person i,e, proposed Contemnor No,1, who has no concern with the subject property of this constitutional petition and the official respondents who have already complied with the order of this Court in letter and spirit. In view of above, I am of the affirmed view that the applicant has filed a frivolous application, and has wasted precious time of this court, therefore this application is dismissed with the cost of Rs, 10,000 to be deposited in the account of dispensary established in the Circuit Court, Hyderabad; within a month; in default whereof the cost shall be recovered under the Land Revenue Act.