Dismissed

R. Santhosh Kumar v. Dr. Karthikeyan

Kerala HC7 Nov 2018Con.Case(C)/1569/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition challenged the failure to fully demolish a building on a National Highway contrary to this court's judgment ordering removal of encroachers. The court found no contempt as the issue of ingress and egress was separate and held the writ petition could not be converted for personal causes.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case was closed dismissing the petition as no contempt was found.

R. Santhosh Kumar Vs Dr. Karthikeyan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

Con.Case(C). No.1569 of 2018 IN WP(C). 10028/2017

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.10028/2017 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 08-06-2017

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

R. SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O.RAJAGOPALA KURUP, AGED 50 YEARS, KALEEKKAL VEEDU, ARYANKAVU P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 DR. KARTHIKEYAN FATHER'S NAME AND AGED NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LINES, CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM - 691 013.

¶12

2 SRI.C.GIREESH KUMAR

¶13

FATHER'S NAME AND AGED NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER, THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PUNALUR, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 305.

¶14

3 SRI.SANTHOSH KUMAR FATHER'S NAME AND AGED NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER, THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARYANKAVU VILLAGE, ARYANKAVU P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 309.

¶15

4 SMT.ANU PRIYA FATHER'S NAME AND AGED NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER, THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER-III, NATIONAL HIGHWAY SUB DIVISION, THENMALA, THENMALA P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 308.

¶16

5 SRI.S.L.SAJI FATHER'S NAME AND AGED NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER, THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, PUNALUR, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 305.

¶17

Con.Case(C). No.1569 of 2018

¶18

¶19

6 SMT.SINI FATHER'S NAME AND AGED NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶20

7 SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI DEVI VILASOM, ARYANKAVU,ARYANKAVU P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 309.

¶21

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RENIL ANTO

¶22

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

Con.Case(C). No.1569 of 2018

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that proceedings have not been taken in accordance with Annexure A4 judgment. The allegation therein was that there were encroachers in the National High Way between Aryankavu Sree Dharmasastha Temple and Aryankavu Railway Station. This Court found that none of the encroachers were impleaded and directed finalisation of proceedings in accordance with law. It was specifically noted that there could be no time bound finalisation directed.

¶27

2. Now the petitioner's contention is that there was a notice issued, which is produced as Annexure A7 and demolition of a building was partially carried out as per Annexure A8. The petitioner submits that the balance portion of the building affects ingress and egress into a property owned by him. That is not a question agitated in

¶28

Annexure A4. If at all there is any such blocade, the petitioner is to take appropriate remedies

¶29

Con.Case(C). No.1569 of 2018

¶30

¶31

before the Civil Court. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is already a civil case pending. The writ petition obviously was to remove encroachers from the National Highway and it cannot be converted to agitate personal causes, especially in a contempt case. This Court does not find any contempt having been committed. Hence the contempt case is closed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

sp/14/11/18

True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

Con.Case(C). No.1569 of 2018

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

ANNEXURE P1	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09/12/2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PERSONS UNDER SECTION 15(2) OF THE KERALA HIGHWAY PROTECTION ACT TO REMOVE THE SHED NO.60 AND 61.
ANNEXURE P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. A4- 378/14 DATED 08/12/2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO. HC/GL/2005 DATED 23/04/2015 AND ESTIMATE RECEIVED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE P4	THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08/06/2017 IN W.P.(C) NO.10028/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT AND THE FIRST PAGE OF THE JUDGMENT EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.
ANNEXURE P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/09/2017 IN CONTEMPT CASE (C) NO.1541/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06/07/2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 15(2) OF THE HIGH WAY PROTECTION ACT.
ANNEXURE P8	THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SHOP ROOM ERECTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON THE SIDE OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 208 AT ARAYANKAVU.

¶42

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

P.A. TO JUDGE

R. Santhosh Kumar v. Dr. Karthikeyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Santhosh Kumar v. Dr. Karthikeyan

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.C.Jose Vs Kuruvayil Renjith Kumar

Anishkumar A.K. Vs Mohammadali

Padmini Amma Vs Thomas Mathew

Davis Vs Babu.P.K

M.K. Kallyani Vs Muhammed Rafi

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Vasukuttan Nair