Contempt petition filed against the District Collector for alleged disobedience of a previous order permitting religious worship. The Court held the order was passed in exercise of delegated power based on subjective satisfaction and did not constitute wilful disobedience.
Contempt petition dismissed; respondent not liable for prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/27TH ASWINA, 1938 Con.Case(C).No. 841 of 2016 (S) IN WP(C).26472/2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26472/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 05-04-2016.
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1. SAJU.K.PAUL, S/O K.P PAILY, KUTTICHIRAYIL HOUSE, KARIMPANA P.O, KOOTHATTUKULAM, AND ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2. SUNIL. V.J, S/O V.C. JOHN, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANNATHUR P.O, PAMPAKUDA VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
3. GEO GEORGE, S/O GEORGE PETER, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSAE, MANNATHUR P.O, PAMPAKUDA VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTNO.5:
M.G.RAJAMANICKAM, FATHERS'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED NOT KNOWN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 030.
BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No. 841 of 2016 (S): -------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERRS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A - CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5/4/2016 PASSED IN W.P.(C) NO.26472/2012 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE-B - A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATEED 23/4/2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE-C - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28/4/2016 BY THE PETITIONERS.
ANNEXURE-D - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED ON SUBMITTING ANNEXURE-C.
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
K. HARILAL, J.
--------------------------------------------------------Con. of Court Case (Civil) No.841 of 2016 --------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 19th day of October, 2016
JUDGMENT
It is the case of the petitioners that in terms of Annexure-A judgment, the respondent is duty bound to see that no religious worship is performed in the disputed building, unless and until appropriate sanction has been obtained in terms of Ext.P40 order in respect of the disputed building. Instead of that, in contravention to Annexure-A judgment, Annexure-B order has been passed by the respondent allowing the parties to conduct religious services in the said building and thereby the respondent has wlfully disobeyed the direction of this Court and he is liable to be prosecuted and punished under the Contempt of
Con. of Court Case No.841 of 2016 -: 2 :-
Courts Act, 1971.
Con. of Court Case No.841 of 2016 -: 3 :-
rituals related to the death anniversary, a confession, O.V.B.S. inauguration and a marriage function of a Parish member and requested to open a study centre on 24/4/2016 for the aforesaid purposes. On subjective satisfaction of the respondent, that the marriage function has already been fixed and it is not related to any religious rituals, a temporary permission has been granted from 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. on 24/4/2016 to open a study centre for conducting the marriage function only. It is also submitted that in the same fact and circumstance, on the subjective satisfaction on the genuineness of the request, the respondent had given permission to the patriarch function for construction of a place of worship temporary as the mother Church is kept closed due to factional dispute.
Con. of Court Case No.841 of 2016 -: 4 :-
requested, will not create any serious law and order issue; nor will affect the communal harmony prevailing in the said area. It is in this circumstance that the respondent had passed Annexure-B order produced by the petitioners, on the basis of the order of this Court in W.P.(c) No.26472/2012 that the entire jurisdiction in the above matter is relegated to this respondent. At last, the respondent submitted that if any of his actions have resulted in disobedience or violation of the orders of this Court or caused inconvenience to this Court, he tenders his unconditional apology for the same. He prayed for dismissing the contempt petition.
Con. of Court Case No.841 of 2016 -: 5 :-
vehemently contended that the respondent has wilfully disobeyed the direction in Annexure-A judgment. But going by Annexure-A judgment, this Court made it clear that the entire further proceedings will stand relegated to the respondent as he is empowered to pass all necessary orders in this matter, on change of circumstance and on his subjective satisfaction thereon, in exercise of jurisdiction and power under Ext.P40 Government Order and Chapter X of the Cr.P.C. Further, this Court held that Annexure-A judgment will not stand in the way of passing necessary further orders by the respondent, who is competent to do so, under Ext.P40 Government Order and Chapter X of the Cr.P.C. and the aggrieved parties are at liberty to approach the respondent for further orders, if they want, on change of circumstances, in this matter and they need not approach this Court, seeking variation or vacation of the judgment, as the entire jurisdiction in this matter will stand relegated to the respondent, as detailed
Con. of Court Case No.841 of 2016 -: 6 :-
above.
Con. of Court Case No.841 of 2016 -: 7 :-
Muvattupuzha has reported that permitting to use the study centre, as a temporary place of wedding ceremony as requested, will not create any serious law and order issue, nor will it affect the communal harmony prevailing in the said area. On subjective satisfaction, arrived at from the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer that there is no chance for any law and order issue, which may affect the communal harmony prevailing in the area, if temporary sanction is accorded for conducting wedding ceremony on 24th April, 2016, he has granted permission to conduct wedding ceremony only on strict conditions.
Con. of Court Case No.841 of 2016 -: 8 :-
by this Court and the order has been passed in exercise of power relegated to him, by Annexure-B order. So, it can be safely concluded that the respondent has not disobeyed the direction of this Court in Annexure-A order and he is not liable to be prosecuted under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Consequently, this Contempt petition fails.
In the result, this Cont. Case (Civil) is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent wilfully disobeyed the direction of this Court by allowing religious services in the disputed building.
Whether the respondent is liable to be prosecuted under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Saju.K.Paul anr
District Collector, Ernakulam
K. Harilal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
