IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 1542 of 2009(S)
1. K.V.DAVIS, S/O.LATE K.P.KUNJUVAREED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. G.SREEKUMARAN, (FATHER'S NAME & AGE
... Respondent
2. MR.SUDHARMAN, (FATHER'S NAME & AGE
3. ARUNAN I.T.(FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT
4. P.PRASANNA, (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT
For Petitioner :SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :22/02/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
-----------------------------------------------
CO(C) No. 1542 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated, this the 22nd day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed this Contempt petition alleging wilful
disobedience of the direction given by this Court as per judgment dated
‘21.12.1990’ in OP 7098/1986.
2. When the matter came for consideration before this Court
on 22.12.2009, taking note of the proceedings pursued in the
meanwhile, the matter was ordered to be posted along with the judges
papers in WP(C) 30847/2009 which hence are now before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits with specific
reference to ‘Ground 4’ of the contempt petition, the Act of contempt was
committed only in the last week of December, 2008 and that the
petitioner came to know of it only on receipt of Annexure 5 letter dated
13.01.2009 and hence that the matter is well within time.
4. On going through the proceedings, it is revealed that the
cause of action projected by the petitioner in OP 7098/1986 was with
regard to the ‘shifting of a transformer’ and to pursue the said work
without interfering with the right of the petitioner. After hearing both the
sides, the said original petition was disposed of as per Annexure A2,
CO(C) No.1542/2009
2
holding that the sustainability of the order passed by the Government
interfering with the orders passed by the District Magistrate was left open;
more so, in view of the finding given by the Government that the
transformer could be shifted to the corner of the compound, without
interfering with the rights of the petitioner therein. It was accordingly
observed that there was no need to interfere with the directions given by
the Government; however, making it clear that in doing the work
consistent with the above direction, the rights of the petitioner shall not be
interfered with and the same shall be carried out keeping in view of Ext.P1
therein.
5. Nearly two decades after passing Annexure A2 judgment, the
petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) 30847/2009 alleging that
the ‘Board’ had encroached into the property of the petitioner and were
cutting down the trees; which hence was sought to be intercepted. Mainly
placing reliance on the verdict passed by this Court in OP 7098/1986,
which was produced as Ext.P3 therein; the averments and allegations
raised by the petitioner were rebutted from the part of the respondents
and after taking note of the rival submissions, it was observed by this
Court in paragraph 2 of the verdict passed, that the proposal had nothing
to do with the earlier instance which was the subject matter of Ext.P3
judgment therein. The new proposal was to draw an ’11 KV line’, since a
CO(C) No.1542/2009
3
new 33 KV Sub Station had been constructed. The version put forth from
the part of the Board that the line was proposed to be drawn only through
the road adjacent to the petitioner’s property and that, for the said
purpose, the stay wires already planted in the petitioner’s property for
drawing the earlier lines had to be strengthened, was also recorded
therein. The submission made from the part of respondent Board that in
view of the objections raised by the petitioner, the matter had already
been referred to the District Magistrate. Accordingly, the matter was
closed as per judgment dated 13.11.2009, holding that the petitioner
could raise all the contentions before the District Magistrate, who was
directed to pass final orders only after considering the said objections as
well.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/contemnor
submits that, after passing the judgment in WP(C) 30847/2009, the
petitioner filed review petition No.1246/2009 against the verdict dated
06.01.2010 passed by the learned Judge. After arguing for some time, the
learned counsel for the petitioner sought for permission to withdraw the
matter, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the
judgment in appeal. Accordingly, permission was granted and the RP was
dismissed as withdrawn, reserving the liberty as above. It is thereafter that
the petitioner has now taken a ‘U turn’ and approached this Court by filing
CO(C) No.1542/2009
4
the present case alleging contumacious act against the respondents/
contemnors in respect of the judgment dated 21.12.1990 passed by this
Court in OP 7098/1986 two decades back.
7. In view of the sequence of events as narrated above, this
Court finds it very difficult to accept the contentions of the petitioner. The
cause of action now forming the subject matter of this petition has got
nothing to do with the ‘shifting of the transformer’ dealt with in Annexure 2
verdict passed by this Court on 21.12.1990 in OP 7098/1986. This being
the position, there is no need to proceed against the respondents/
contemnors in respect of the alleged offence under the Contempt of Court
Act. No interference is called for and it is dismissed accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc