Dismissed

Subaida Beevi v. Thambu Cherian

Kerala HC22 Nov 2013Con.Case(C)/1307/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition filed regarding alleged disobedience of a prior judgment prohibiting quarrying in Kottangal village. The court found that respondents had taken necessary steps, including stopping the operation and reporting violations, and closed the case without further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings against the respondents were closed; no further action required by this Court.

Subaida Beevi Vs Thambu Cherian — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1307 of 2013 (S) IN WP(C).14681/2013

¶6

IN WP(C) 14681/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONER/IST PETITIONER IN WPC NO.14681/2013:

¶8

SUBAIDA BEEVI AGED 60 YEARS W/O. ANSARI, VEKANIL VEETTIL, KULATHUR VAIPURMURI, KOTTANGAL VILLAGE, MALAPPALLY TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL

¶10

RESPONDENTS/4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENTS IN WPC NO.14681/2013:

¶11

1. THAMBU CHERIAN, AGED 48 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA REVENUE TOWER, ADOOR PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶12

2. K.S.MATHEW, AGED 50 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. JOSEPH GEORGE

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Con.Case(C).No. 1307 of 2013 (S) IN WP(C).14681/2013

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶18

ANNEXURE A1:COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER ISUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER KOTTANGAL DATED 14.6.2013.

¶19

ANNEXURE A2:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.7.2013 IN W.P.(C) NO.14681/2013.

¶20

ANNEXURE A3:COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT THAHASILDHAR.

¶21

ANNEXURE A4:COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE GEOLOGIST IN THE WRIT PETITION.

¶22

ANNEXURE A5:COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.6.2013.

¶23

ANNEXURE A6:COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERUMPATTY POLICE STATION.

¶24

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶25

SKV

¶26

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶27

CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (C)No.1307 OF 2013 IN W.P.(C)No. 14681 OF 2013

¶28

Dated this the 22^nd November, 2013

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

This Contempt of Court case has been filed alleging wilful

¶31

dis-obedience of the directions given by this Court as per the judgment dated 31.07.2013 in W.P.(C)No.14681 of 2013. The operative portion of the judgment as contained in paragraph '7' reads as follows:

¶32

“This being the position, the 8^th respondent cannot and shall not be permitted to carry out the quarrying operations in 'Kottangal' village under any circumstance . It will be open for the respondents 4 to 6 to ensure that the quarrying operations being pursued by the 8^th respondent are confined to the particular survey number of the property in 'Ezhumathoor' and to prevent such exercise, if it extends to any portion of the nearby 'Kottangal' village. Appropriate action shall be taken, if there is any violation of the permit conditions as well. ”

¶33

An affidavit has been filed by the second respondent /

¶34

Tahsilar pointing out that all necessary steps have been taken by

¶35

CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (C)No.1307 OF 2013 2

¶36

the concerned respondent to see that the 8^th respondent in the

¶37

writ petition is not carrying out any quarrying operation in Kottangal Village. The version of the said respondent as contained in paragraphs 3 and 5 is extracted below:

¶38

“3. It is respectfully submitted that there is no wilful disobedience to the above direction issued by this Hon'ble Court and a stop memo was earlier issued by the village Officer, Kottangal (6^th respondent in W.P.(C) 14681/2013) prohibiting quarrying operations in Re-survey No.153/3 in Block No.32 of Kottangal Village. On inspection by the Taluk Surveyor in my presence along with other revenue officials on 14.06.2013, it was found that quarrying was done from Resurvey No.153/3. On measurement, it was found that granite stones were removed from an extent of 32 sq.m. in Re-survey No.153/3. The matter was reported to the 1^st respondent requesting him to take appropriate action against the 8^th respondent in WP(C) 14681/13 and to realize the royalty. The 1^st respondent acknowledged the above intimation and directed this respondent to furnish a sketch showing the details of the granite stones removed from re-survey

¶39

CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (C)No.1307 OF 2013 3

¶40

No.153/3 as per letter dated 24.09..2013. Subsequently, the Survey Sketch was forwarded to the 1^st respondent.

¶41

4. xxxxxx

¶42

5. It is hereby submitted that no quarrying operations are being effected from the property comprised in Re-survey No.153/3 in Block No.32 of Kottangal Village subsequent to 14.06.2013. Necessary directions were already given to the Village Officer, Kottangal to closely monitor the area so as to take immediate action in the event of any illegal quarrying. There is absolutely no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner in the above Contempt of Court case. There is no contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents and the directions contained in Annexure-A2 judgment are strictly implemented. Hence, it is most humbly prayed to close the above Contempt of Court Proceedings against the respondent. ”

¶43

After considering the materials on record and also the

¶44

submissions made by the learned Government Pleader as to the

¶45

steps already taken to give effect to the direction given by this Court and the further steps being pursued to maintain 'Status

¶46

CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (C)No.1307 OF 2013 4

¶47

quo', this Court finds that no further proceedings are required to

¶48

be pursued at the hands of this Court

¶49

Accordingly, the matter is closed.

¶50

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶51

Subaida Beevi v. Thambu Cherian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subaida Beevi v. Thambu Cherian

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

Manager, Corporate Management of Csi Vs Bindu Mathew

Biju Prasad P. Vs the Chief Gneral Manager, BSNL

Priyanka Jacob Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Koloth Parambil Alavi Vs Aravindakshan

Sahya Haritha Sangham Vs Patil Ajith Bhagawat Rao, IAS

Santhamma Vs Tahsildar