Dismissed

Rajagopal Pai v. K.G. Babukumar

Kerala HC8 Jun 2015Con.Case(C)/797/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition filed alleging non-compliance of directions to remove encroachment and provide police protection. Court found no wilful disobedience and closed the petition, noting grievance regarding planting of new saplings must be addressed by Governor/different authorities.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's grievance regarding planting of saplings must be approached to appropriate authorities as per previous judgment. Petitioner has no case against the respondents.

Rajagopal Pai Vs K.G. Babukumar — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶5

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/18TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶6

Con.Case(C).No. 797 of 2015 (S)

¶7

WP(C) 34630/2014 of THIS HONOURABLE COURT

¶8

PETITIONER :

¶9

------------------

¶10

RAJAGOPAL PAI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.VENKITESWARA PAI, RESIDING AT PUTHUPARAMBIL, CHERTHALA SOUTH MURI OF CHERTHALA VILLAGE, CHERTHALA P.O. 688 524.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD

¶12

SRI.M.RISHIKESH SHENOY

¶13

RESPONDENTS :

¶14

----------------------

¶15

1. K.G. BABUKUMAR

¶16

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN:688 524.

¶17

2. SRI. V.D.BIJU,

¶18

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, CHERTHALA P.O., 688524.

¶19

3. SMT. SREELATHA, THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN:688524.

¶20

4. SRI. DAYANANDAN, THE VILLAGE OFFICER CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERTHALA P.O.688524.

¶21

5. SRI. VINOD

¶22

PRESIDENT P.A.C.A READING ROOM, REGISTER NO.578/86 C.M.C-XVII, OPP. CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, CHERTHALA-688524.

¶23

6. SRI. VENUGOPAL R.

¶24

S/O RAMA PAI, K.S.E.B. SUB ENGINEER, ALUNGAL PUTHENMADHOM, C.M.C.-XII, CHERTHALA-688524.

¶25

7. SRI.SAJI

¶26

S/O LATE THANKAPPAN, THERUVIL HOSUE OPPOSITE CHERTHALA POLICE STATION CHERTHALA P.O.-688524.

¶27

Con.Case(C).No. 797 of 2015 (S)

¶28

8. SRI. SUDINAKUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, RESIDING AT ASWATHI C.M.C.XIII, CHERTHALA-688524 (AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER OF THE RESPONDENTS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER.)

¶29

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. SYAMKUMAR BY SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN

¶30

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

¶32

Con.Case(C).No. 797 of 2015 (S)

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶35

ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 11/2/2015 IN WPC NO. 34530 OF 2014 THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶36

ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED ON 3/3/2015 PRODUCTING THE JUDGMENT BEFORE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4.

¶37

ANNEXURE III: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 11/3/2015.

¶38

ANNEXURE III(A): COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE - III.

¶39

ANNEXURE IV: COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO. 599 OF 2015 OF CHERTHALA POLCIE STATION.

¶40

ANNEXURE IV(A): COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE -IV

¶41

ANNEXURE V: TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS

¶42

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ &

¶47

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶48

================

¶49

Cont.Case (C) No. 797 of 2015 ===================

¶50

Dated this, the 8^th day of June, 2015

¶51

J U D G M E N T

¶52

Shaffique, J

¶53

Petitioner has approached this Court alleging non compliance of the directions issued by this Court as per judgment dated 11/2/2015 in W.P (C) No. 34630/14. Para 3 and 4 of the judgment reads as under;

¶54

“3. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that respondents 4 and 5 shall take immediate steps to remove the encroachment in the road puramboku, which is complained of by the petitioner. The 3^rd respondent shall provide adequate police protection for the same. This shall be done within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶55

4. It is made clear that we have not adjudicated on the right of the Government to utilise the said portion of puramboku land. It is always open for the revenue authority to take appropriate decision in the matter.”

¶56

COC No.797/15

¶57

-:2:-

¶58

In fact, the writ petition was one for police protection for removing the encroachment in the puramboke land lying in front of the petitioner’s property. According to the petitioner, in compliance with the direction at para 3 of the judgment, the encroachment has been removed by the revenue authorities. His complaint is that thereafter some persons have planted some tree saplings in the said portion of the puramboke land completely blocking his access to the property. In fact, we have already indicated that we have not adjudicated on his right to use the said portion of the land for access or for any other purpose and it is for the Government to decide on the use of said portion of the land. If the petitioner has any further grievance in this regard, he will have to approach the appropriate authorities. We do not find any wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents.

¶59

Contempt petition is, therefore, closed

¶60

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶61

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶62

Rajagopal Pai v. K.G. Babukumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajagopal Pai v. K.G. Babukumar

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

P.Abraham Vs Biju Prabhakar,Ias

Mary Augustine Vs Thressiamma

K.Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

Aysha R.S. Vs P.C.Binoy

Sajani @ Ahina Vs Sainudeen

Kizhakke Purayil Kuzhikannan Vs the Special Tahsildar (L.a.)