IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 855 of 2008()
1. LEEVAN JOSE, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.B.ASOK KUMAR, 51 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI. JEEVAN JOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :01/07/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cont. Case ( C ) No.855 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 1st July, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in I.A.No.2434/08 (the 4th respondent in the Writ
Petition) has filed this Contempt Case alleging that Annexure A1
order passed by this court in I.A.No.2434/08 in W.P.C.No.35642/07
has been violated. The following were the specific directions issued to
the Secretary of the Panchayat under Annexure A1:
i) The Secretary of the Panchayat is directed to conduct immediate
local inspection of the premises of the commercial building, which is
subject matter of the order passed by the Ombudsman. The local
inspection will be conducted with notice to the petitioner in the Writ
Petition, Sri.Jeevan Jose, the fourth respondent and his father, the
third respondent in the writ petition.
ii) If the inspection reveals that the claim of Sri.Jeevan Jose that a
separate residential building having four rooms (two rooms in
upstairs and two rooms in down stairs) has been constructed behind
the commercial building which is subject matter of the Ombudsman’s
order, the Panchayat will assign door number to that residential
building since that construction cannot obviously violate Section 220
(b).”
COC No.855/08 – 2 –
2. The Secretary of the Panchayat has filed a detailed
statement through which it is claimed that all the directions in
Annexure A1 order have been faithfully complied with by the
Panchayat. It is claimed that inspection with notice to the petitioner in
the Writ Petition as directed in Annexure A1 was conducted, but the
inspection did not reveal the existence of any separate two storied
residential building behind the commercial building which is the
subject matter of the Ombudsman’s order. What was noticed was
that additional constructions have been made to the commercial
building itself. It is submitted that in view of the pendency of the Writ
Petition relating to the Ombudsman’s order, it is not possible to
accede the petitioner’s request to assign door numbers to the
portions (newly added) to the existing commercial building.
2. Heard Mr.Jeevan Jose, party in person and
Mr.P.N.Purushothama Kaimal, counsel for the Panchayat.
3. The petitioner would agree before me that it is not a
residential building separated from the commercial building which is
the subject matter of the Ombudsman’s order which has been put up
by him. He agreed that the constructions made by him are additions
to the existing commercial building. He claimed that these additions
COC No.855/08 – 3 –
are not new additions but they have been in existence even when the
Ombudsman passed the order.
4. The question which arises in this Contempt Case is whether it
can be found even prima facie that the Secretary of the Panchayat is
guilty of violating Annexure A1 order. That question, in my opinion,
can be answered only in the negative. The Contempt Case will stand
dismissed. However, the right and remedy of the petitioner to impugn
Annexure A3 in separate proceedings are not foreclosed.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
