IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con Case(C) No. 1446 of 2007(S)
1. SUKUMARAN NAIR, ANJALIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.P.SANTHA(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME
... Respondent
2. SAROJINI, SAROJA BHAVAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :07/02/2008
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Contempt of Court Case No.1446 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2008
JUDGMENT
The accusation against the respondents in this contempt of
court case is that in violation of Annexure A interim order, the
party respondent was permitted to carry out construction of her
residential building. The construction permitted, it is alleged,
violated the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Under Annexure A
interim order, this court had directed the second respondent-
Secretary of the Panchayat to ensure that the party respondent
constructs the building only in accordance with the approved plan
and permit and as per the provisions of the Kerala Municipality
Building Rules.
2. The only question which arises for consideration is
whether the first respondent to whom only Annexure A was
addressed can be said to be guilty of violating that order. Though
the Annexure A interim order was confirmed by this court under
Annexure B final judgment, it should be noticed that what was
confirmed was only the direction which was addressed to the first
CCC.No.1446/07 2
respondent in the contempt of court case. There was no
restraining order against the party respondent from continuing
with the constructions. Whatever that be, it will now be
considered whether either of the respondents are guilty of having
dis-obeyed Annexure A or B.
3. The secretary of the Panchayat has filed a detailed
counter affidavit in support of I.A.No. 39/08. Along with that
affidavit, Annexure R1(a) and R1(b) are produced. Annexure R1
(b) is the order passed by the secretary of the first respondent in
compliance with the directions in Annexure A. In other words,
Annexure R1(b) is passed on Ext.P1 referred to in Annexure B.
Annexure R1(a) is the copy of the letter which was submitted by
the party respondent before the first respondent. That letter will
show that pursuant to Annexure A, an inspection of the premises
was conducted by the first respondent and that on noticing that
two windows and a sun shade were fixed or constructed in
violation of the Municipality Building Rules, instructions for
removal of those windows and sun shade was given to the party
respondent and that the party respondent complied with those
instructions.
4. Sri.K.P.Rajeevan, learned counsel for the party
respondent would submit that after the passing of Annexure A
CCC.No.1446/07 3
interim order, though the same did not restrain the party
respondent from continuing with the construction, no further
constructions were made. There is sufficient indication in Ext.P3
Commission report that the two windows which the first
respondent directed the party respondent to remove had already
been fixed, when the Commissioner visited the property or
preparing Ext.P3 report.
The materials placed on record are not sufficient to hold that
a prima facie case is made out for initiating any action against
either the respondents for contempt. As far as the first
respondent – Secretary of the Panchayat is concerned, it is
transparently clear that he has obeyed Annexure A and has gone
into the extent of directing the party respondent to remove two
windows found to be fixed in violation of the Building Rules,
notwithstanding the fact that those two windows had already
been fixed much prior to the institution of the writ petition or
atleast at the time when the Commissioner visited the property,
I do not find any reason for initiating any action against either the
respondents for contempt. Contempt of Court Case will stand
dismissed.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE.
SV.
CCC.No.1446/07 4