Dismissed

Mosque Lane Resident'S Association v. Biju Prabhakar, District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala HC23 Nov 2016Con.Case(C)/387/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case, the court examined whether the respondents failed to implement directions from a prior judgment. Finding efforts were made but delayed due to corporate inaction and obstruction by another association, the court held there was no wilful disobedience and dismissed the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

The contempt of court case is dismissed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to take necessary action in accordance with law.

Mosque Lane Resident'S Association Vs Biju… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 387 of 2016 (S)

¶6

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 4650/2015 DATED 13-02-2015)

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITONER IN W.P(C).NO.4650/2015:

¶8

MOSQUE LANE RESIDENT'S ASSOCIATION, KESAVADASAPURAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/1 & 3 RESPONDENT IN W.P(C).NO. 4650/2015:

¶11

1. BIJU PRABHAKAR, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001

¶12

2. JOHN SAMUEL, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,

¶13

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(LA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶14

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

COC.NO.387/2016

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEX A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/2/15 IN WP(C). NO.4650/15 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEX R1(A) COPY OF THE LETTER NO.503/2007 DATED 19/02/2015 ANNEX R1(B) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/02/2015

¶23

ANNEX R1(C) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6/4/2016 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY.

¶24

ANNEX R1(D) COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED 23/03/2015.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶29

Contempt Case (C) No.387 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This contempt case is filed by the petitioner, complaining that the directions contained in the judgment dated 13.02.2015 are not implemented by the respondents.

¶32

A statement is filed by the 1^st respondent, as

¶33

directed by this Court on 05.04.2016, basically contending that on receipt of the copy of the judgment in the writ petition, a letter dated 19.02.2015 was forwarded to the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, requiring to fix demarcation stones so as to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings, evident from Annexure-R1(a). In response to the said letter, a letter dated 26.02.2015 was issued by the 2^nd respondent which was received by the 1^st respondent on 19.03.2015, evident from Annexure-R1(b), and the 2^nd respondent has sought further time to take necessary steps. Later, a reminder letter dated 06.04.2016 was issued to the Corporation requiring to take immediate action in that regard. In response to the same,

¶34

letter dated 06.04.2016 was issued by the Secretary,

¶35

COC No.387 of 2016 2

¶36

Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram to the 1^st respondent, evident from Annexure-R1(c). As per Annexure-R1(c), Corporation has sought further time to take necessary steps. It is also stated, on the basis of the request made by the petitioner, a formal decision was taken by the Corporation to widen the Mosque Lane Road with 7 metres width, and the said proposal was placed before the Government. Acting on the proposal, technical sanction was given by the Government in that regard. But, no further action was taken by the Corporation. In the meantime, representation dated 23.03.2015 was submitted by Sowhardha Residents' Association against the proposal for widening the Mosque Lane Road, evident from Annexure-R1(d).

¶37

It is also stated, stiff opposition has been made on behalf of the said Association against widening of the road, and hence the respondents are not in a position to go ahead with the proposed project. First respondent has also stated that, 1^st respondent has made all earnest efforts to implement the judgment of this Court. It is further stated, in W.P.(C) No. 4650 of 2015, as sought for by the respondents, extension of time for complying with the direction issued by this Court was

¶38

COC No.387 of 2016 3

¶39

granted uptil 12.09.2016. Therefore, the respondents seeks dismissal of the contempt of court case.

¶40

Taking note of the respective submissions made across the Bar, and reckoning the facts and circumstances available from the pleadings and the documents produced by the rival parties, I am of the considered opinion, efforts were made by the respondents to comply with the directions issued by this Court. However, the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, who has to take necessary action to widen the road, did not respond promptly to the communications issued by the respondents. Added to this, another Residents' Association created obstruction in widening the road, which resulted in creating chaos in implementing the order. The totality of the circumstances show that the respondents have not indulged in any wilful disobedience to comply with the directions contained in the judgment.

¶41

In that view of the matter, I am of the considered

¶42

opinion that petitioner has not made out a case to initiate contempt action against the respondents.

¶43

¶44

COC No.387 of 2016

¶45

Resultantly, the contempt of court case is dismissed, however, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to take necessary action in accordance with law.

¶46

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶47

//true copy//

¶48

P.S. to Judge

¶49

St/24.11.2016

Mosque Lane Resident'S Association v. Biju Prabhakar, District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mosque Lane Resident'S Association v. Biju Prabhakar, District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

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

K. Chandramohan Vs District Collector

Thankamma Vs the Sub Collector & Presiding Officer

M/S. Ashirwad Trading Company Vs Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation

Raveendran M Vs Union of India

Ratheesh Vs Faisal

Basheer Vs the Additional District Magistrate