High Court Kerala High Court

N.Jayakumar vs Sri.Sanjay Kaul on 16 September, 2009

Kerala High Court
N.Jayakumar vs Sri.Sanjay Kaul on 16 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con.Case(C).No. 678 of 2009(S)


1. N.JAYAKUMAR, AGED 45, S/O.NEETHIPALAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. R.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 48,

                        Vs



1. SRI.SANJAY KAUL, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME
                       ...       Respondent

2. R.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, AGE AND FATHER'S

3. ABDUL NAJEEB, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME

4. JALAJAKUMARI.P.S., AGE AND FATHER'S NAME

5. SURESH, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,

6. BAIJU, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,

7. PRASANNAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT

8. PRASAD, S/O.SREDHARAN, AGE NOT KNOWN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.R.RAJESH

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :16/09/2009

 O R D E R
                              S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
                       ==================
                   Contempt Case (C) No. 678 of 2009
                       ==================
              Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009
                              J U D G M E N T

The petitioners in this contempt case are two of the petitioners in

the writ petition. They are alleging violation of Annexure A interim

order passed by this Court in W.P.(C).No.11350/2009. The interim

order is directing respondents 1 to 5 and respondents 9 and 10 to see

that Ext.P19 is implemented forthwith. Ext.P19 is a stop memo

directing the 11th respondent to stop quarrying in the property in

question. The allegation of the petitioners is that even after the interim

order, the 11th respondent in the writ petition continued to do blasting

operations in the property in question. As per the direction from this

Court, the jurisdictional Geologist has filed a report, wherein he has

categorically stated that after the date of the stay order, no quarrying

operations are being done in the property in question. But in the report

it is stated that in some adjacent properties, in respect of which, there

is no stop memo, quarrying operations are going on. The petitioners

have not been able to satisfy me with any reliable material that the

report of the Geologist is in any way wrong. Therefore, I do not think it

necessary to continue proceedings in this contempt case. Accordingly,

this contempt case is closed. However, I make it clear that it would be

open to the petitioners to approach this Court again, if any violations

are detected in future.

Sd/-

sdk+                                              S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
          ///True copy///

                               P.A. to Judge

2