Dismissed

Dr.J.Abraham Neyyarapalli v. Balachandran K.K.

Kerala HC10 Oct 2014Con.Case(C)/588/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner identified the pathway insofar as the earlier judgment directed, and no case of contempt was made out. The petition for police protection to erect a boundary was dismissed as not maintainable in writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Professed that no case of contempt is made out; contempt and writ petition left open for other jurisdictions.

Dr.J.Abraham Neyyarapalli Vs Balachandran K.K. — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/18TH ASWINA, 1936 Con.Case(C).No. 588 of 2014 (S) IN WP(C).17075/2013 -----------------------------------------------------

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17075/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 31-03-2014

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

DR.J.ABRAHAM NEYARAPALLI

¶8

AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH, CMC NO.30 VELOORVATTOM P.O., CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -688 524 (POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF JOE ANTONY MAMPILLY AZHIKKAL, NJARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM)

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. BALACHANDRAN K.K.

¶12

AGED NOT KNOWN, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA.

¶13

2. BABU KUMAR AGED NOT KNOWN, S/O. NOT KNOWN THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHERTHALA PIN- 688 524.

¶14

3. ANEESH AGED NOT KNOWN, S/O. NOT KNOWN CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA - 688 524.

¶15

*4. BIJU AGED NOT KNOWN, S/O. NOT KNOWN, SECRETARY SREE NARAYANAPURAM JAGADEESWARA KSHETRAM TRUST VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, VAYALAR EAST P.O., CHERTHALA RESIDING AT KADNKATHURUTH, VAYALAR, WARD NO.3 CHERTHALA, PIN- 688 524. ADDL.R5 R.JAYESH, AGED NOT KNOWN, S/O.RAJAPPAN, PRESIDENT, SREE NARAYANAPURAM JAGADHESWARA KSETHRAM TRUST, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, VAYALAR EAST P.O., CHERTHALA, RESIDING AT CHIRAYIL HOUSE, WARD NO.3, VAYALAR PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA, PIN - 688 524.

¶16

COC 588/14

¶17

***ADDL.R6 T.RATHESH, AGED NOT KNOWN, S/O.NOT KNOWN, VICE PRESIDENT, SREE NARAYANAPURAM JAGADHESWARA KSETHRAM TRUST, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, VAYALAR EAST P.O., CHERTHALA. *ADDL.R7 P.S.ANEESH, AGED NOT KNOWN, S/O.SURA, SECRETARY, SREE NARAYANAPURAM JAGADHESWARA KSETHRAM TRUST, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, VAYALAR EAST P.O., CHERTHALA, RESIDING AT PUTHENTHARA, NIVARTHU, WARD NO.3, VAYALAR PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA, PIN - 688 524. ADDL.R8 P.SHAJI, AGED NOT KNOWN, S/O.NOT KNOWN, TREASURER, SREE NARAYANAPURAM JAGADHESWARA KSETHRAM TRUST, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, VAYALAR EAST P.O., CHERTHALA. ADDL.R9 VAYALAR SHAJI, AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O.SURENDRAN, RESIDING AT PUTHUVAL NIVARTHU, WARD NO.5, VAYALAR P.O., CHERTHALA.

¶18

***(ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.10.2014 IN I.A.NO.262 OF 2014.)**

¶19

R1-R3 BY ADV. P.I.DAVIS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 BY ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER R4 BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGHUNANDANAN ADDL.R5 -R9 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE

¶20

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-10-2014, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.16782 OF 2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

COC 588/13

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶24

ANNEXURE-A1 OF THIS HONO	: COPY OF URABLE COURT.	JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2014 IN WP(C) 17075/13
ANNEXURE-A2	: COPY OF	SKETCH.
ANNEXURE-A3	: COPY OF	PLACARD WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE-A4	: PHOTOS R	EVEALING THE SITUATION.
ANNEXURE-A5	: COPY OF	REPRESENTATION DATED 07.06.2014.
ANNEXURE-A6	: COPY OF	NOTICE.
ANNEXURE-A7	: ENGLISH	TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A6.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶26

ANNEXURE-R3(a) : PHOTOGRAPH NO.1 SHOWING PROTECTION GRANTED ON 09.06.2014. ANNEXURE-R3(b) : PHOTOGRAPH NO.2 SHOWING PROTECTION GRANTED ON 09.06.2014. ANNEXURE-R3(c) : PHOTOGRAPH NO.3 SHOWING PROTECTION GRANTED ON 09.06.2014. EXHIBIT R4(1) : ORIGINAL NOTICE OF THE “PRATHISHTTA PROGRAMME” FROM 26.05.2014 TO 02.06.2014. EXHIBIT R4(1)(a) : FIRST (COVER) PAGE CONTENT OF EXT.R4(1) WORDED IN ENGLISH.

¶27

EXHIBIT R5 : PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE TEMPLE AND ITS STRUCTURES.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

¶32

COC No.588 of 2014 and WP(C) No.16782 of 2014

¶33

.................................................................... Dated this the 10^th day of October, 2014.

¶34

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶35

1.The captioned contempt of court case is instituted on the basis of the judgment in WP(C) No.17075 of 2013, which was subject to clarificatory order issued in R.P.No.579 of 2014. The judgment in WP(C) No.17075 of 2013 as clarified as per order in RP No.579 of 2014 is to the effect that the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.17075 of 2013 should identify a pathway and the party respondents in the writ petition are entitled only to use that pathway till the disposal

¶36

of the civil suit between the parties. The sketch, which was Ext.P11 in WP(C) No.17075 of 2013 and which has been produced as Annexure-A2 in the captioned contempt of court case, was made the basis of the judgment in WP(C) No.17075 of 2013. It was directed that the party respondents will have the right to use the pathway, which is about one metre width and 42 metres length. That is the piece shown in Annexure-A2 as leading to the

¶37

plot 'MNOPM' starting from the PWD road running from Vayalar

¶38

COC 588/14 & WPC 16782/14

¶39

-2-

¶40

Junction to Nagarkulangara Junction. Therefore, for the present, subject to the result of the suit, there is no confusion about the identify of the parcel, which has to be taken as the pathway which will have around one metre width and could be used by the public for access to the plot 'MNOPM', in which the 'Bhajanamadom' is stated to be situated. Under such circumstances, the petitioner in WP(C) No.17075 of 2013 is entitled to put fencing on either side of that pathway using the materials which will not harm the public, including the children, while they move through that pathway to the Bhajanamadom. Since whatever ordered as per judgment in WP(C) No.17075 of 2013 is to put up fencing or refencing, it is directed that the petitioner will be entitled to put up a fence using metal rodes, without using any barbed wire or other articles which are likely to injure persons using that pathway, in both sides of the pathway. Once that is done, the party respondents will be entitled to utilise that pathway, subject to the result of the suit. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we do not

¶41

COC 588/14 & WPC 16782/14

¶42

-3-

¶43

see that any case of contempt is made out to take cognizance under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶44

2.Insofar as WP(C) No.16782 of 2014 is concerned, it is filed by the same writ petitioner seeking an order for police protection to put up boundary for the entire property which he claims to be belonging to him. We think that it is too farfetched to enter into such a question in writ jurisdiction. That is a matter which could be best agitated, if need be, in competitive civil courts. He also wants to erect a pump house in the property. But, during the course of hearing, the relief sought for by way of police protection to enable erection of a pump house, is withdrawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶45

For the aforesaid reasons, the contempt of court case and the writ

¶46

petition are ordered leaving parties to seek other remedies in other appropriate jurisdictions, if need be. We also clarify that the

¶47

COC 588/14 & WPC 16782/14

¶48

-4-

¶49

parties are not precluded by this judgment from seeking relief from appropriate civil court, including interlocutory reliefs, as may be found due by the competent civil court.

¶50

(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶51

(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶52

Dr.J.Abraham Neyyarapalli v. Balachandran K.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.J.Abraham Neyyarapalli v. Balachandran K.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maliyekkal Subaida Vs Abdul Khader.C.T

Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Usha Rajamma Vs Appu

James Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Biju Xavier Vs State of Kerala

Lalitha C.George Vs State of Kerala