IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 1864 of 2008(S)
1. SENSO V.SCARIA, S/O.SCARIA AGED 26 YRS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DR.M.BEENA, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT
... Respondent
2. MANJULLA, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT
3. BIJU K.STEPHEN, AGE AND FATHERS NAME
4. M.SULOCHANA, AGED AND FATHERS NAME NOT
5. T.L.GEORGE, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :27/01/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Cont. Case (C).No.1864 OF 2008
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
1. When this matter came up on 9.1.2009, I had dictated a
judgment that the contempt case is closed. After that order
was dictated in Court, the learned counsel appearing for the
4th respondent in this contempt case mentioned that he could
not reach the Court in time and wanted this matter to be listed
for consideration of counter affidavits. I thought it appropriate
to do so. Hence it was ordered that this matter be listed along
with the judges papers in W.P(C).27418/08, the matter in
relation to which, the case on alleged enlargement is filed.
2. Having perused the papers of this case and the judges papers
in W.P(C).27418/08, I am clear in my mind that this is
essentially a case where this Court was being taken for a ride
when this contempt case was moved and an order obtained
issuing notice to respondents 2 to 4, who are public officers,
COC.1864/08
Page numbers
calling upon them to file affidavits. The reason why I say so
are the following:
3. The writ petition was filed on 8.9.2008 holding out Exts.P2, P4
and P5, which were communications issued by the Deputy
Chief Controller of Explosives and the Municipal authorities.
Accordingly, an interim order was issued on 9.9.2008 that in
the light of those documents, there would be no quarrying
operations without obtaining required licenses and certificates
from the Grama Panchayat, Explosives Controller, Geologist,
Pollution Control Board, Police force and Rescue Department
and in terms of the relevant statutes and regulations.
4. It is seen that the counter affidavit of the 10th respondent in
W.P(C).27418/08 was filed on 17.11.2008, after serving copy
on the counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. For
whatever they are worth, Ext.R10(a) to R10(j) produced along
with that counter affidavit are shown to be permissions,
licences, clearance documents, quarry permit, Panchayat
COC.1864/08
Page numbers
licence etc. On that day itself, the 10th respondent had filed
I.A.14755/08 in that writ petition to lift the interim order
issued at the stage of admission, which is the one forming the
basis of the contempt of court case in hand. While the writ
petition was pending at the aforesaid stage, with the
application to vacate the interim order, this contempt court
case was filed on 18.12.2008, after sending representation
dated 16.12.2008, taking the firm stand that the interim order
dated 9.9.2008 is flouted.
5. The bold assertion in para 4 of this case is that the 10th
respondent in the writ petition has not obtained the due
licences, permits etc. The fact that the 10th respondent had
filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition and had also
applied to vacate the interim order were surreptitiously
suppressed. Those are matters which were relevant while
considering the contempt case against the stay order. This is
all the more so because the 10th respondent in the writ
petition, whatever be the merits of his claim, had placed
COC.1864/08
Page numbers
documentary evidence before the writ court in support of his
claim that he has a due licence. Going by the permits, I find
that whether they were sustainable or not, the 10th respondent
in the writ petition had been holding out the documents from
some time in July, 2008 and has a permit only until June, 2009.
6.I am sure that this contempt case was filed only to circumvent
the proceedings in the writ petition where the 10th respondent
therein had sought for the interim order being vacated. In the
aforesaid circumstance, this contempt case is a clear case of
abuse of the process of this Court and a calculated attempt to
deflect the course of justice. The contempt case is only to be
rejected. Notice was issued in this case to respondents 2 to 4,
calling upon them to file affidavits. The 4th respondent has
filed counter affidavit producing documents. The police
officers were present before this Court on 9.1.2009. The
petitioner is to be mulcted with exemplary costs in favour of
respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner will, therefore, pay an
COC.1864/08
Page numbers
amount of Rs.25,000/- each to each among respondents 3 and
4 as costs of this contempt of court case.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.
kkb.