IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 421 of 2010(S)
1. C.V. JOSE, AGED 65 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ABHILASH, SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. P.L. RAFFI,
For Petitioner :SRI.JIJO PAUL
For Respondent :SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :12/11/2010
O R D E R
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Contempt Case (Civil) No. 421 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
This Contempt case arises from the common
judgment dated 08.01.2010 passed by a learned Judge of this
Court in W.P.(C) Nos.34321 of 2009 and 33793 of 2009.
2. The basic dispute revolves around the issue with
regard to the conduct of the shops bearing Nos.9/640/12,13 and
14 and that the main allegation was that the business was being
conducted without getting proper licences from the local
authority. The writ petitions were disposed of with the following
directions:
“(i) The Corporation shall reconsider Ext.P2
appeal with notice to the petitioner and other aggrieved
persons including the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34321/2009 and
pass a reasoned order as directed by this Court in Ext.P3
judgment in W.P.(C) No.32080/2007. This shall be done as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(ii) In the meanwhile, petitioner will be permitted to
carry on only the licensed activities in building No.9/640(14)
and shall not resort to any activity in building No.9/640/12,
13.”
COC No. 421 of 2010
-:2:-
3. The petitioner in the Contempt Case contends
that, despite the specific direction given, not to conduct any
activity in building Nos.12 and 13; only scant regard was given
to the same by the respondents, which made the petitioner to
approach this Court to initiate appropriate proceedings under
the Contempt of Court Act. Reliance is sought to be placed on a
‘Commission Report’, filed in the suit before the Civil Court,
wherein some observations have been made by the Advocate
Commissioner as to the nature of the operation.
4. Taking note of the materials on record, it was
observed by the learned Single Judge in the reference order
dated 05.08.2010 that, admittedly without licence, room No.12
was being used at least for storage purpose and prima facie,
there was some contempt; which forms the subject matter of
this case before us. Pursuant to the notice issued, the
respondents have entered appearance and filed separate
counter affidavits also producing copies of the relevant
documents.
COC No. 421 of 2010
-:3:-
5. The 1st respondent, the Secretary, Thrissur
Municipal Corporation has stated that there is absolutely no
merit or bona fides in the contents of the affidavit filed in
support of the Contempt Case; in so far as no such activity, as
alleged, is being carried out in the concerned premises. It is
asserted that, shop No.12 stands closed down. Shop No.13 has
been surrendered by the 2nd respondent and pursuant to the
application submitted by the concerned person for conducting a
perfume business, necessary licence has already been issued
and it does not form the subject matter of the present contempt
case. With regard to shop No.12, it is stated that even from the
report of the Advocate Commissioner, no business was noted as
being conducted and the shop was lying closed, when the
Advocate Commissioner visited the premises. It is also
specifically pointed out in paragraph 3 of the said affidavit, that
the Corporation had never received any complaint from the
petitioner, that the 2nd respondent was doing business in the
concerned shops after Annexure I judgment.
COC No. 421 of 2010
-:4:-
6. The 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit referring
to the sequence of events and submits that no such operations
as alleged by the petitioner have been carried out, nor are
intended to to be pursued contrary to the verdict passed by this
Court. It is stated that, in connection with the business being
conducted in shop No.14, some materials were of course stored
in shop No.12 also. Subsequently, all such materials were
shifted to shop No.14 and that nothing remains in shop No.12.
It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the reference
order was passed on 05.08.2010 without any reference to the
modification of the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge in
the appeal preferred therefrom, before the Division Bench. A
copy of the final verdict passed by the Division Bench has also
been produced and marked as Annexure R2(a) [which is the
same as Annexure R1(b)].
7. While disposing the Writ Appeal, the Division
Bench directed the Corporation to consider the application for
licence to carry out business in shop No.12 and 13, if the
COC No. 421 of 2010
-:5:-
appellant therein filed fresh application, along with ‘pollution
clearance’ from the Pollution Control Board. The Corporation
was directed to dispose of the application within a period of ‘one
month’ from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It
was observed that, in the meanwhile, the appellant should not
carry out any activity in connection with ‘manufacturing or
mixing’ in shop Nos.12 and 13 and in case of any violation, the
Corporation was directed to take appropriate action.
8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for all
the parties concerned, this Court finds that the reference made
by the learned Single Judge was obviously without any
reference to the verdict passed by the Division Bench on
07.06.2010, modifying the directions given by the learned
Single Judge in the writ petitions. The point to be looked into is,
whether any activity in connection with manufacturing or mixing
operation is being conducted in shop Nos.12 and 13. No such
case has been made out. We find that no further steps are to
be pursued in the contempt matter. Accordingly, the Contempt
COC No. 421 of 2010
-:6:-
Case is closed.
However, this will not stand in the way of the
petitioner in bringing up the violation, if any, to the extent it is
beyond the directions already given as aforesaid.
J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice.
P.R.Ramachandra Menon,
Judge.
ttb