Disposed

Vattavada Grama Panchayat v. M.G.Rajamanickam I.A.S

Kerala HC6 Jul 2011Con.Case(C)/432/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt jurisdiction, the Court addressed the Respondent's alleged disobedience of an interim stay order by issuing new guidelines. The Court deprecate the conduct but did not proceed with punishment due to the Respondent's expression of regrets and subsequent withdrawal of the impugned guidelines. The contempt case was closed without prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is closed without proceeding against the contemnor; the interim stay of the withdrawn guidelines is deemed of no further significance.

Vattavada Grama Panchayat Vs M.G.Rajamanickam I.A.S — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933

¶4

Con.Case(C).No. 432 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ (AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.3897/2011) ....................

¶5

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶6

¶7

VATTAVADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VATTAVADA, KOVILOOR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685615, REP. BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT G.MOHANDAS, S/O.THE LATE GANDHIDAS, AGED 49 YEARS, ASARIVEETTIL HOUSE, VATTAVADA KOVILOOR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685615.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA ADV. SRI.O.F.JUSTIN

¶9

RESPONDENT/4TH RESPONDENT:

¶10

¶11

M.G.RAJAMANICKAM I.A.S., AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SUB COLLECTOR), DEVIKULAM, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685613.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT. K. MEERA

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Con.Case(C).No. 432 of 2011(S)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶17

ANNEXURE 1	:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2011 IN WPC. 3897 OF 2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE II	:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. B5-1019/10 DATED 18.03.2011 OF THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE III	:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. B5-1019/10 DATED 23.03.2011 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.
ANNEXURE IV	:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B5-1019/10 DATED 9.7.2010 OF THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE V	:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B5-1019/10 DATED 17.7.2010 OF THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE VI	:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B5-1019/10 DATED 30.7.2010 OF THE RESPONDENT. 30
ANNEXURE VII	:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B5-1019/10 DATED 06.08.2010 OF THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE VIII	:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B5-1019/10 DATED 19.8.2010 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE IX	:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. 8354/A2/10/RD DATED 12.08.2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶18

/TRUE COPY/

¶19

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶20

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶21

CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE(C) No. 432 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C)No.3897 OF 2011

¶22

Dated this the 6^th July , 2011

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

This Contempt of Court case arises in respect of the alleged wilful disobedience of the order dated 01.03.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3897 of 2011, whereby Exts.P14 and P15 were stayed.

¶25

The petitioner contends that , ignoring the interim order

¶26

of stay as above, the respondent, on his own issued some “norms and guidelines” dated 18.03.2011 for cutting and removing Eucalyptus trees. It is pointed out that, since the very ban imposed by the concerned respondent as per Exts. P14 and P15 regarding cutting and removal of Eucalyptus trees was stayed by this Court as per Annexure-I order, there was absolutely no need, necessity or occasion for the contemnor to have issued the alleged guidelines on 18.03.2011, which is stated as an Act of Contempt. Reference is also made to the contents of

¶27

the said guidelines, wherein the necessity to have obtained

¶28

¶29

CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE(C) No. 432 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C)No.3897 OF 2011

¶30

'passes' from the Sub Collector (respondent) is also mentioned, which in effect attempts to re-write the order passed by this Court, intercepting Exts.P14 and P15 orders.

¶31

The respondent filed an affidavit dated 18.05.2011, explaining the facts and circumstances, though with full of mistakes , which shows that the affidavit has been prepared and filed by the deponent, who is an IAS officer, in a casual manner. It is stated that there is no locus standi('ng') for the Vice President of the Panchayath to have filed the writ petition on behalf of the Panchayath. It is also stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit as follows:

¶32

“It is humbly submitted that the situation which necessitated this respondent to issue the guidelines proceedings on 18.03.2011, because after the stay given by the Honourable Court for the RDO's ban order all of them started cutting the grandis trees from the Government land also on the strength of patta. This happened because in most of the case is the land holders as some extent of patta land then large extent of

¶33

CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE(C) No. 432 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C)No.3897 OF 2011

¶34

¶35

encroached government land also in his possession. As this respondent is the authority to protect the government land and its resources has issued the proceedings permitting only legal cutting i.e.; only from patta land.” .

¶36

Reference is also made to some ecological/environmental aspects. In the original order issued by the concerned authority imposing the ban, no specific provision was however pointed out, as to the authority of the concerned respondent to have issued Exts.P14 and P15 with regard to cutting and removal of Eucalyptus trees from the land of the owners of the property; more so, when the case of the petitioner is that no permission is required either under the Act or Rules for cutting the Eucalyptus trees and further that “Eucalyptus” has been included as 'item 26' in Ext.P2 Schedule issued under the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas (Amendment)Act, 2007.

¶37

When the matter came up for consideration on 23.06.2011, the position was taken serious note of and an order was passed on the said date, directing the respondent/contemnor

¶38

CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE(C) No. 432 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C)No.3897 OF 2011

¶39

¶40

to file compliance report by filing an affidavit, giving effect to the order dated 01.03.2011, failing which, to appear in person before this Court along with all the relevant records. Pursuant to the said order, an affidavit dated 01.07.2011 has been filed before this Court (repeating the same/similar mistakes) referring to the sequence of events; paragraphs 5 and 6 of which are relevant and hence, extracted below:

¶41

“5. It is humbly submitted that the situation which necessitated this respondent to issue the guidelines proceedings on 18.03.2011, because after the stay given by the Honourable Court for the RDO's ban order all of them started cutting the grandis trees from the Government land also on the strength of patta. This happened because in most of the case is the land holders as some extent of patta land then large extent of encroached government land also in his possession. As this respondent is the authority to protect the government land and its resources has issued the proceedings permitted only legal cutting i.e. only from patta land. It is humbly submitted that this respondent is taking steps

¶42

CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE(C) No. 432 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C)No.3897 OF 2011

¶43

¶44

to get the stay order of this Honourable Court vacated.

¶45

6. Those who are illegally possessing government land affected by the proceedings of this respondnet has approached the Honourable Court with illegal motive filed the false contempt misusing the government institution. If the petitioners are legal holders of land, then definitely the respondent proceedings will aid them to cut and remove tree from their patta land. By issuing the guidelines for cutting grandis tees this respondent meant to simplify the procedure for issuing the cutting permit and not to act against the order of this Honourable Court.”

¶46

However, the contemnor submits that the he is not guilty of any wilful disobedience and has expressed sincere regrets; simultaneously pointing out that the Annexure-II ('guidelines' dated 18.03.2011) has already been withdrawn by passing an order dated 01.07.2011, a copy of which has been produced along with the said affidavit.

¶47

Considering the sequence of events, this Court cannot

¶48

CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE(C) No. 432 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C)No.3897 OF 2011

¶49

¶50

but deprecate the stand and course pursued by the

¶51

respondent/contemnor for having ignored the interim order of stay passed on 01.03.2011 and in having issued the alleged 'guidelines' (which has now been recalled). If at all, the respondent was aggrieved of the interim order passed by this Court in any manner, it was open for him to have filed a petition to vacate the interim order or to modify the same. Instead of pursuing such course, the respondent chose to find out his own 'ways and means', which is not palatable under any circumstance.

¶52

It is to be noted that the writ petition had come up for consideration before this Court on different occasions and it was after granting adjournments on 08.02.2011, 10.02.2011 and again on 21.02.2011, that the matter was admitted on 01.03.2011, also granting interim stay for want of any instructions. Even today, no counter affidavit has been filed in the writ petition. However, in view of the explanation offered from the part of the respondent/contemnor, also expressing

¶53

CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE(C) No. 432 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C)No.3897 OF 2011

¶54

sincere regrets and also taking note of the fact that the respondent/contemnor, a young officer aged 30 years, was proceeding with the steps in his enthusiasm to protect the public wealth (though not in proper manner), this Court does not intend to proceed with further steps against him. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed, accepting the affidavit dated 01.07.2011 filed by the respondent/contemnor.

¶55

It is made clear that the respondents in the writ petition

¶56

are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for modifying or vacating the interim order, if the same is not sustainable, either on facts or in law. Since Annexure-II “Guidelines” dated 18.03.2011 is now stated as withdrawn as per the order dated 01.07.2011, the interim order of stay of the said proceedings, passed by this Court on 23.06.2011, is of no further significance.

¶57

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶58

Vattavada Grama Panchayat v. M.G.Rajamanickam I.A.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vattavada Grama Panchayat v. M.G.Rajamanickam I.A.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Raveendranathan Nair Vs P.K.Rajeev

P.M.Hassankutty Vs Stationary Controller and Others

Francis Stanley Vs P.K.Nalini

Manoharan Vs District Collector and 5 Others

Jobby Thomas Vs Mini Antony,District Collector,Kottayam

K.M.Ramani Vs G.Vijayakumar