IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 1252 of 2010(S)
1. J.DEVAKI, AGED 78 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.SANTHOSH,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.O.XAVIER
For Respondent :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM MPT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :16/11/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.O.(C) No. 1252 of 2010-S
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Alleging non compliance of the direction issued by this Court in
Annexure A1 judgment, this Contempt of Court Case has been filed. The
writ petition was filed by the petitioner alleging that the Corporation was
bound to reconstruct a compound wall which was demolished for enabling
the Corporation to put up concrete slabs over the drainage. Ultimately, the
matter were settled as per the decision reflected in the minutes, a copy of
which was produced as Ext.P3 in the writ petition. This Court therefore
directed the parties that in terms of the decision taken in Ext.P3, the first
respondent will complete the construction within a period of three weeks
from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. A review petition
was filed on behalf of the respondent which was dismissed by this Court.
2. It is the allegation of the petitioner herein that while reconstructing
the compound wall, the direction in the judgment have not been fully
complied with and the implementation is not in tune with the conditions
provided in Ext.P3.
3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the petitioner has
CCC 1252/2010 2
filed a reply affidavit also. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my
attention to the details of Ext.P3 and the photographs produced along with
the affidavit to contend for the position that now the compound wall has
been constructed leaving a width of 2 ft. from the concrete slabs. It is
stated that this is in violation of the conditions provided in Ext.P3.
4. Learned counsel for the Corporation explained that the terms in
Ext.P3 have not been violated an the construction fully tallies with the terms
contained therein.
5. In the light of the contentions raised by the parties herein, the
matter will have to be gone into in detail by an appropriate forum, viz. the
civil Court where the actual position with regard to the compound wall
which was existing prior to the construction and the manner in which the
reconstruction was effected, etc. will have to be gone into.
Therefore, leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to file a civil
suit and seek for appropriate reliefs, the C.C.C. is closed. It is made clear
that I have not expressed anything on the merits of the matter.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/