IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 1072 of 2010(S)
1. GRAMA SAKTHI JANAKEEYA SAMITHI,REP.CONVE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.J.ANTONY(FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :15/11/2010
O R D E R
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
------------------------------------------
Cont. Case (C) No. 1072 of 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
J.Chelameswar, C.J.
Complaining that the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)
No.14426 of 2002 dated 28th October, 2005 is wilfully violated, the
instant contempt case is filed.
2. The substance of the grievance in the writ petition
was that there was indiscriminate encroachment on the banks of
Ayinithodu (canal) and other connected canals resulting in
flooding of the nearby localities and the petitioner complained that
the respondents authorities of the State are not taking any action
against the encroachers.
3. By the judgment dated 28th October, 2005 this Court
disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to make
“concerted efforts for identifying the encroachments/encroachers”
and “to take appropriate stern action for the removal of the
Cont. Case (C) No. 1072 of 2010
2
encorachments at the earliest.” It may be mentioned here that none
of the persons alleged to be the encraochers was a party to the
above mentioned writ petition.
4. The present contempt case came to be filed in the
month of August, 2010. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by
the respondent that pursuant to the direction of this Court referred
to above, a survey was sought to be conducted to identify the
encroached areas and the encroachers. Eventually on the basis of
the survey, the Grama Panchayat which was the 6th respondent in
the writ petition, initiated eviction proceedings against the
identified encroahers. Some of them were in fact evicted and some
of them approached this Court by way of various writ petitions
asserting various legal rights, the details of which may not be
necessary for the present purpose. In one of them (W.P.(C)
No.6699 of 2007) by the judgment dated 5th March, 2007 this
Court directed the respondents to conduct a re-survey and then take
action against the encroachers. This was followed by a series of
Cont. Case (C) No. 1072 of 2010
3
writ petitions initiated by various persons, complete details of
which may not be necessary for the purpose of this case.
5. In substance, the respondent submitted that the order
of this Court dated 28.10.2005 could not be implemented in full
though the respondent made very earnest effort to implement the
same, in view of the various legal proceedings initiated at the
behest of various persons who were not parties to the above
mentioned writ petition. The respondent therefore submits that
though there is delay in implementation of the orders of this Court,
the delay can never be said to be either wilful or deliberate.
6. We have perused the counter affidavit and noted the
details of the various steps taken by the respondent. We are
convinced that there was no deliberate disobedience of the orders
of this Court, but the respondent was prevented from implementing
the orders of this Court by various legal proceedings.
7. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to
proceed further with the contempt case. The contempt case is
Cont. Case (C) No. 1072 of 2010
4
closed. We only wish to add that this case perhaps is one of the
classic instances of how giving a go-by to the established
procedures of law would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of
litigations.
J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice
P.R.Ramachandra Menon,
Judge
vns