IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con APP(C) No. 5 of 2007(S)
1. P.K.M.KUTTY HAJI, S/O. KUNHALASSAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. B.M.JAMAL,
... Respondent
2. K.V.KUNHIMOHAMMED HAJI,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.ABDUL KAREEM
For Respondent :SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR, SC, WAKF BOARD
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :11/06/2007
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.
-------------------------
Contempt Appeal No.5 of 2007
-------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2007.
JUDGMENT
H.L.DATTU, C.J.
The petitioner was before this court in W.P.(C)
No.37621/04. His main prayer in the writ petition was to issue an
appropriate direction to the 2nd respondent interdicting him from
constructing a building in the burial ground of a public trust. His
other grievance was that he had already filed an appropriate
petition before the Kerala Wakf Board, Ernakulam and the same is
not yet disposed of by them, in spite of long lapse of time. The
learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by order
dated 28.12.2004 and in that, has directed that the 2nd respondent
shall not complete the construction of the building till the first
respondent viz., the Kerala Wakf Board decides the petition filed by
the petitioner, Ext.P2.
2. Alleging that the 2nd respondent, in spite of the
directions issued by this court in the aforesaid writ petition, has
completed the construction, the petitioner was before this court in
C.C.No.1532/06. The learned Judge has disposed of the contempt
petition by order dated 7.3.2007 and in that, has directed the Wakf
Contempt Appeal No.5 of 2007
:: 2 ::
Board to consider the petition Ext.P2, which is numbered as
O.P.No.122/04, as expeditiously as possible.
3. Aggrieved by the said direction issued in the
contempt petition, the complainant is before us in this appeal.
4. In this appeal, we are not deciding the
maintainability or otherwise of the appeal filed by the petitioner
against the orders passed in yet another contempt petition. We
leave this issue open for a decision in appropriate case.
5. The only direction that was issued by this court,
while disposing of the writ petition was, that the 2nd respondent
shall not put up any further construction till Ext.P2 petition, filed
by the petitioner pending before the Wakf Board, is disposed of.
6. Alleging that the 2nd respondent has completed the
construction, the petitioner has filed this contempt petition. In the
contempt petition so filed, the petitioner has not produced any
material even to suggest that after the disposal of the writ petition,
the 2nd respondent has made any further construction in the
disputed property. Keeping this aspect in view, the learned
Judge has disposed of the contempt petition directing the Board
to decide the petition filed by the petitioner as early as possible.
Contempt Appeal No.5 of 2007
:: 3 ::
In our view, the learned single Judge has not
committed any error whatsoever and therefore, no interference is
called for in the appeal filed against the said order. This
contempt appeal is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
H.L.DATTU
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
K.T.SANKARAN
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. To Judge