IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 661 of 2008(S)
1. V.D.RAPPAI,. VADAKKETHALA HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUBASH(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ROY CHACKO
For Respondent :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :30/06/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
C.O.C. NO. 661 of 2008
----------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of June , 2008
JUDGMENT
I am in complete agreement with Sri.Roy Chacko when he
submits that it should be the anxiety of the court always to ensure
that the dignity and prestige of the court be upheld by insisting a
complete obedience with orders passed by the court. But in the
present case I find that the secretary of the Panchayat had in
deference to Annexure A2 judgment issued a stop memo to the
second respondent in the writ petition directing him to stop the
functioning of the restaurant. Of course, as submitted by Sri. Roy
Chacko, the Secretary of the Panchayat could have ensured that the
stop memo is not disobeyed by the second respondent in the writ
petition by seeking the assistance of the local police in the matter.
But, the explanation offered by Sri. S.Shanavas Khan the learned
counsel for the Panchayat that it was because of Ext.R1(b)
judgment passed by this court and the hearing facilitated pursuant to
Ext.R1(b) and the decision taken on the basis of such hearing, that
the Secretary of the Panchayat did not seek assistance of the police in
this matter is fairly convincing. Therefore, I am of the view that the
C.O.C. No.661/2008 2
instant one is not a fit case where the action should be initiated against
the Secretary of the Panchayat for violating orders of this court.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
dpk