IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 1248 of 2010(S)
1. K.SURESH KUMAR, AGED 44,
... Petitioner
2. T.SUGATHAN, AGED 40,
3. M.ARAVINDAN, AGED 52,
4. M.DINESH KUMAR, AGED 39,
Vs
1. MANOJ JOSHY, AGE AND FATHER'S
... Respondent
2. V.K.BABY, AGE AND FATHER'S
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :25/11/2010
O R D E R
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1248 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
The petitioners have approached this Court with this
Contempt Petition stating that only scant regards have been
paid to the verdict passed by this Court on 24.11.2009, where,
an undertaking was given on behalf of the Government and
also on behalf of the Water Authority that, completion of the
pipe line laying works from sewage treatment plant, Kozhikode
Medical College to Canoly Canal will be completed and
commissioned after trial run by the 4th week of July, 2010.
2. During the course of the proceedings, the
learned Government Pleader submitted that the 1st
respondent/contemnor is actually in no way connected with the
matter. In the said circumstances, the petitioners have filed
an Interlocutory Application bearing No., I.A. 591 of 2010 to
substitute the 1st respondent, which was allowed and the 1st
respondent was substituted as per order dated 13.10.2010.
Contempt Case(Civil) No. 1248 of 2010
-:2:-
But no draft memo of charges has been filed in respect of the
said substituted respondent. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the grievance projected will stand
confined only to the 2nd respondent and that the matter need not
be dealt with, against the 1st respondent.
3. The substituted 1st respondent has filed an
affidavit. It is revealed from the affidavit that the construction
of the sewage treatment plant was completed; its trial run was
successfully conducted and the remaining work is with regard to
the laying of pipe lines.
4. The 2nd respondent, has filed a counter affidavit
pointing out the sequence of events as to the steps taken to
comply with the undertaking given. It is stated that, the work
was entrusted by the Water Authority, on tender, to one
Mr.T.Ramachandran, a Contractor, who commenced the work.
However, the work was intercepted by the local public and a
series of proceedings by way of negotiations, meetings,
conferences etc; at the instance of the District Collector,
Kozhikode, Mayor of Kozhikode Corporation and also the MLA of
Contempt Case(Civil) No. 1248 of 2010
-:3:-
Kozhikode Assembly Constituency were held at different points of
time. It is also brought to our notice that some of the local
residents had approached this Court by filing a writ petition,
seeking an alternate route to drain out the treated water from
the treatment plant. It is also pointed out in the counter affidavit
that earnest efforts have been made to obey the undertaking
given while finalising the proceedings as per the verdict dated
24.11.2009 and that there is no willful disobedience in any
manner.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf
of the 1st respondent and also the learned Counsel for the 2nd
respondent, we find that no further proceedings are required to
be pursued in this matter; but for observing that the work shall
be finalised without any further delay.
6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent who
happens to be the Standing Counsel for the Water Authority
submits that they require six months’ time to complete the work.
However, taking note of the actual facts and figures and the
Contempt Case(Civil) No. 1248 of 2010
-:4:-
steps already taken, we find it fit and proper to grant three
months’ time from today, so as to have the entire works
completed and the project commissioned.
With the above observation and direction, the
Contempt of Court Case is closed.
J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice.
P.R.Ramachandra Menon,
Judge.
ttb