In a contempt petition alleging disobedience of an order to remove encroachments blocking road access, the Court found that two rooms were demolished and partial blockage remained, holding that substantial compliance negated wilful disobedience. The petition was closed.
Contempt petition closed; no liability for disobedience established.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/30TH JYAISHTA 1934
Con.Case(C).No. 283 of 2012 (S)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.33475/2006 DATED 28-11-2011
PETITIONER/PETTIONER IN THE W.P.(C)
S. MOHANAN NAIR, S/O .SIVARAMAN PILLAI, AGED 61 YEARS, CHANGALIPPALLIL HOUSE, KARAVOOR P.O., PIRAVANTHUR (VIA), PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV
RESPONDENTS/ 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE WP(C)
1. D. RAJAN PILLAI (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETTIONER) THE TAHSILDAR,
2. R.VIJAYAN (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR 691 305
3. K.S.ASOKAN (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT) PWD (ROADS) SUB DIVISION, T.B.JUNCTION, PUNALUR 691 305
4. THOMAS (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN - 691 013
MJL
COC.NO:283/2012
5. C.V.RADHAKRISHNAN(AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETTIONER)
THE SECRETARY, PIRAVANTHOOR GRAMAPANCHAYATH, PATHANAPURAM BLOCK, VETTITHITTA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 696
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MJL
COC.NO:283/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
| ANNEXURE I | : | JUDGMENT DATED 28/11/2011 IN WP(C)NO.33475/06 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT |
|---|---|---|
| ANNEXURE II | : | TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 03/12/2011 SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER |
| ANNEXURE III | : | TRUE COOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT |
| ANNEXURE IV | : | TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT |
| ANNEXURE V | : | TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD SENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT |
| ANNEXURE VI | : | TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SENT TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT |
| ANNEXURE VII | : | TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD SENT TO THE FIFTH RESPONDENT |
| ADDL.ANNEXURE VIII | : | A COUPLE OF PHTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 WHEN THE WRIT PETITION (CIVIl) WAS FILED IN THE YEAR 2006 |
| ADDL.ANNEXURE 1X | : | A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7, SANS THE PAN SHOP |
| ADDL.ANNEXURE X | : |
A COUPLE OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE TEA SHOP OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT AFTER THE DEMOLITION OF THE ADJACENT ROOMS |
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:
| ANNEXURE R3(a) | : TRUE COOPY OF NOTICE DATED 23/11/2011 |
|---|---|
| ANNEXURE R3(b) | : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.35261/2011 |
| ANNEXURE R3(c) | : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 7/3/2012 |
| ANNEXURE R3(d) | : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 7/3/2012 |
| ANNEXURE R3(e) | : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23/12/2011 |
| ANNEXURE R3(f) | : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 01/03/2012 |
| ANNEXURE R3(g) | : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 07/03/2012 |
MJL
COC.NO:283/2012
ANNEXURE R5 (A) : A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.JS/406/12 DATED 26/03/2012 ANNEXURE R5 (B) : A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.JS 406/12 DATED 07/04/2012
/TRUE COPY/
P A TO JUDGE
MJL
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
COC.NO.283/2012
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. By annexure-A1 judgment in writ petition(c).No.33475/06 this court directed the 3rd respondent and the Panchayat to conduct an enquiry and to take action for the removal of encroachment into the public road. This direction was issued, taking note of the complaint of the petitioner that as a result of the unauthorised structure constructed by the respondents 6 and 7 in the writ petition, access to his property is completely blocked. It is alleging disobedience of the above direction the contempt petition has been filed.
:2 :
COC.No.283/2012
meetings were convened and the parties were also heard. Accordingly he found that out of the three rooms that were unauthorizedly constructed, two were constructed after 2006 and one is more than 44 years old. Taking note of this, he directed demolition of the structures constructed after 2006 and also directed that as respondents 6 and 7 does not have any other place to live they will be allowed to continue their occupation till a suitable place is available to shift their belongings. It is also seen that subsequently noticing that the structures constructed after 2006 were not removed as ordered, the Secretary issued Annexure R5(b) notice requiring demolition of the structures and that later those structures were demolished.
COC.No.283/2012
:3 :
offending construction, his access to the public road is completely blocked and on the admitted removal of two rooms it could be seen that blockage if any is only partial. In other words the petitioner's grievance is also substantially redressed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE
vi/
COC.No.283/2012
:4 :
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to initiate contempt proceedings for alleged wilful disobedience of a direction to remove encroachment.
Whether substantial compliance with the judgment removing some structures justifies dismissing the contempt petition.
S. Mohanan Nair
D. Rajan Pillai
R. Vijayan
K.S. Asokan
Thomas
C.V. Radhakrishnan
Antony Dominic
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
