In a contempt petition alleging disobedience of an interim order regarding construction disputes, the High Court of Kerala, upon police affidavit confirming the absence of law and order issues and assurance of protection, found no grounds to proceed and closed the case.
The contempt case is closed with no grounds to proceed further.
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 P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/2ND BHADRA, 1939
Con.Case(C).No. 1226 of 2017 (S) IN WP(C).21954/2017 ------------------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 21954/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 03.07.2017.
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1. DR. ELSAMMA J CHALAMANA AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. JOY, KANJIRAKATTU CHALAMANA HOUSE, PERUMPILLICHIRA P.O, KUMARAMANGALAM PANCHAYAT, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI.
2. JOY, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. KOCHUVARKEY, KANJIRAKATTU CHALAMANA HOUSE, PERUMPILLICHIRA P.O, KUMARAMANGALAM PANCHAYAT, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI.
3. JOEL, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O. JOY, KANJIRAKATTU CHALAMANA HOUSE, PERUMPILLICHIRA P.O, KUMARAMANGALAM PANCHAYAT, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI.
BY ADVS.SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ SRI.V.HARISH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1. K.B. VENUGOPAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, 685 601.
2. SREEMON
3. JOBY ANTONY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI 685 584.
BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
kp
P.N. RAVINDRAN & DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ
C.O.(C). No. 1226 of 2017
JUDGMENT
P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.
This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents herein have wilfully disobeyed Annexure A1 interim order passed on 03.07.2017 in W.P.(C).No.21954 of 2017.
“5. It is submitted that the investigation so
C.O.(C). No. 1226 of 2017
-2-
far conducted in this case revealed that, the petitioner has been constructing a new residential building in their property which is at the neighborhood of the accused persons. Property of both the accused persons and the complainant are situating in the opposite sides of a private mud road in which both parities have equal rights. As part of the construction of the building and for the movements of building materials and equipments for the construction purpose, the petitioner deposited red soil in the mud road, which is used by the petitioner, 2nd respondent Karim and others. Due to rain the red soil spread on the road and in front of Karim's house and the soil became muddy which caused much inconvenience to the road users. The 2 nd accused Karim is a physically handicapped person and he uses specially designed Scooter (supported with additional wheels). Since the road become muddy, he faces much inconvenience for his movements. So the accused requested to the complainant's husband Joy to remove the mud from the road but he denied the demand. As such both the parties became bad in terms and enimical.
C.O.(C). No. 1226 of 2017
-3-
taking all efforts to ensure that peaceful atmosphere prevails in the locality and that petitioners have free ingress to and egress from their property. The petitioners do not dispute the averments extracted above, except the statement in paragraph 7 of the affidavit sworn to by the Sub Inspector of Police that the member of the Panchayat had expended his own funds to put up a hump along the margin of the main road at the beginning of the pathway leading to the petitioners house. However as that dispute is not the subject matter of the controversy before us, we do not propose to go into the merits of the
C.O.(C). No. 1226 of 2017
-4-
said contention. Suffice to say that as at present there exists no grounds to proceed further with this contempt case for the reason that the police have taken appropriate action, to enable the petitioner to proceed with the construction.
We therefore find no good grounds to proceed further with this contempt case. It is accordingly closed.
Sd/-
P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE
kp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed with the filed contempt case against the respondents.
Whether the police submission of adequate action and assurance of protection justifys dismissal of the contempt petition.
DR. ELSAMMA J CHALAMANA
JOY
JOEL
K.B. VENUGOPAL
SREEMON
JOBY ANTONY
P.N.RAVINDRAN
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
