Disposed

Gegee Sajeev v. Suresh

Kerala HC3 Jan 2014Con.Case(C)/1047/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt case challenged the High Court's previous order regarding a demand draft. The Court found that the Respondent had complied with the directions by forwarding the matter to the Chief Town Planner. Finding no wilful disobedience, the Court closed the contempt proceedings without prejudice to other remedies.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt of Court Case (No.1047 of 2013) is closed as no further proceedings are necessary.

Gegee Sajeev Vs Suresh — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2014/13TH POUSHA, 1935

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1047 of 2013 (S)

¶6

---------------------------------------------[ORDER DATED 21/06/2013 IN W.P.(C).NO.9193/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT]

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

GEGEE SAJEEV, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.SAJEEV GEORGE, THARAYIL MUTTICHUKKARAN HOUSE, CHERPU P.O , THISSUR DISTRICT., PIN-680 561.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL S.RAJ, SMT.K.N.RAJANI, SMT.ANILA PETER, SRI.J.VIVEK GEORGE, SMT.C.PRABITHA.

¶10

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶11

SURESH, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE SECRETARY, CHERPU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 561.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN, SRI.P.G.DEVADAS.

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Prv.

¶15

CON. CASE (C). NO.1047/2013-S:

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEXURE 1:	CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGEMENT DTD. 21/06/2013 IN W.P.(C).9193 OF 2013.
ANNEXURE 2:	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DTD. 10/12/2012 DRAWN ON INDIAN OIL CORPORATION.
ANNEXURE 3:	LETTER ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT DTD. 17/08/2013 BY PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE 4:	TRUE ORIGINAL OF POSTAL COVER IN WHICH ANNEXURE D WAS SENT BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEXURE A:	COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 26/07/2013.
ANNEXURE B:	COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 17/08/2013.
ANNEXURE C:	COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CHERPU PANCHAYATH DTD. 21/08/2013.
ANNEXURE D:	COPY OF THE INTIMATION GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 24/08/2013.
ANNEXURE E:	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DTD. 12/09/2013.
ANNEXURE F:	COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE PLAN DTD. 01/11/2013.
ANNEXURE G:	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TRIVANDRUM THROUGH THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICE DTD. 07/11/2013.
ANNEXURE H:	COPY OF THE INTIMATION GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 07/11/2013.
ANNEXURE I:	COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS. DTD. 12/11/2013.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶25

CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No.1047 OF 2013 IN W.P.(C)No.9193 OF 2013

¶26

Dated this the 3^rd January, 2014

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Non-compliance of the direction given by this Court as per the judgment dated 21.06.2013 in W.P.(C) 9193 of 2013

¶29

is the subject matter involved herein. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was made to run from pillar to post and it was only as a measure of harassment, that the application preferred by the petitioner for granting D&O licence has not been considered by the respondent.

¶30

Pursuant to the service of notice, the respondent has

¶31

filed an affidavit dated 27.09.2013 followed by a reply affidavit

¶32

filed by the petitioner. This led to a further affidavit filed by the respondent , producing copies of the relevant documents.

¶33

Heard the matter in detail.

¶34

When the matter came up for consideration before this

¶35

Court on 28.10.2013, the following order was passed.:

¶36

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the direction given by this Court as per Annexure -1 judgment has not been

¶37

¶38

¶39

complied with, on time and that after filing the contempt matter, the petitioner was served with Annexure- D proceedings dated 24.08.2013 referring to some defects, immediately followed by Annexure- E order dated 12.09.2013, turning down the request for issuance of licence referring to noncuring of defects noted in Annexure-D proceedings .

¶40

2. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that a petition for extension of time to comply with the judgment has already been filed in the writ petition. It is also submitted that the respondent is ready to re-consider the matter, if the defects pointed out in Annexure-D, at Sl.Nos. 1 to 7 are cured within one week.

¶41

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration,

¶42

the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the defects pointed out have been cured by the petitioner and accordingly, the matter was considered. It is pointed out in paragraph '3' of the additional affidavit dated 18.11.2013 that the District Town Planner was consulted, when the respondent was required to ensure compliance of Rule 61(9) of the Kerala Panchayat

¶43

¶44

Building Rules, 2011 and it was accordingly, that the proceedings have been forwarded to the Chief Town Planner . A communication dated 07.11.2013 has already been issued in this regard in compliance with the direction given by this Court and the position has been let known to the petitioner as well.

¶45

It is also pointed out that some other defects were also pointed out by the District Town Planner to be cured from the part of the respondent as well as the petitioner. After curing the defects pointed out, the respondent has already forwarded the matter to the Chief Town Planner through the office of the District Town Planner . It is stated that the proceedings will be finalised immediately on obtaining necessary clearance from the Chief Town Planner.

¶46

After hearing both the sides and on going through the pleadings and proceedings, this Court finds that no further proceedings do require to be pursued by this Court by way of Contempt Proceedings, as there is no wilful disobedience so as to constitute any offence under the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶47

The learned Counsel for the petitioner however points

¶48

¶49

out that, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for having forwarded the matter to the Chief Town Planner referring to Rule 61(9) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules and that the said Rule does not have any application at all. This of course is a matter to be looked into by way of appropriate proceedings, if the concerned order is subjected to challenge by the petitioner; correctness of which cannot be considered in a Contempt matter.

¶50

In the said circumstance, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue the remedy as aforesaid, the Contempt of Court Case is closed, as no further proceedings are necessary.

¶51

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶52

Gegee Sajeev v. Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gegee Sajeev v. Suresh

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

Thankamma Kurumban Vs the Tahsildar

Fina K.Jose Vs the Additional Tahsildar

G.Raveendran Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Amrutha S.H Vs State of Kerala

Aryalakshmi Wilson Vs State of Kerala

Malu T Vs the Deputy Director of Education