Allowed

Sathikumari v. S.Prem Sankar

Kerala HC18 Nov 2020Con.Case(C)/1027/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition was filed for non-compliance with directions in an earlier writ petition regarding Panchayat obstruction. The Court directed the respondent to ensure strict compliance and warned that the Secretary would face contempt proceedings for any future obstruction or inaction.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed with direction to respondent to ensure judgment compliance; warning of contempt proceedings for future obstruction.

Sathikumari Vs S.Prem Sankar — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Con.Case(C).No.1027 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9344/2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9344/2015(P) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SATHIKUMARI, AGED 60 YEARS, D/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, HOUSE WIFE, EDAYIL HOUSE, ANNAL, PIRAPPANCODE.P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 607.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SR.) SMT.TINTU JOSEPH SRI.AMAL GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

S.PREM SANKAR, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, SECRETARY, MANICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANICKAL, PIRAPPANCODE.P.O., TRIVANDRUM, PIN695 607.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Con.Case(C).No.1027 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9344/2015

¶16

..2..

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 18th day of November 2020

¶19

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶20

submits that the respondent has chosen to comply with the directions after long lapse of time based on orders passed in the contempt case. It is submitted that the members of the Panchayat committee are responsible for the delay occurred in complying with the directions of this Court.

¶21

It is submitted that the respondent – Secretary was incapacitated to take timely action on account of their recalcitrant attitude. However, the learned Senior Counsel fairly submits that the directions in the judgment have been complied with much strain and effort. It is pointed out that more than five years lapsed after

¶22

the petitioner had chosen to move this Court to get benefit of the directions.

¶23

The respondent is directed to ensure that the judgment is

¶24

Con.Case(C).No.1027 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9344/2015

¶25

..3..

¶26

complied with in the strict sense without the directions being disobeyed by any person. If any further obstruction is caused, necessarily, the Secretary is bound to take timely action, otherwise this Court will have to seriously take note of such inaction for proceeding for contempt.

¶27

With observation as above, the contempt is closed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

¶32

Con.Case(C).No.1027 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9344/2015

¶33

..4..

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

ANNEXURE	1	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF OS.NO.641 OF 2012 DOWNLOADED FROM TH	THE JUDGMENT IN DATED 10.8.2016 E INTERNET.
ANNEXURE	2	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF OS.NO.741 OF 2012 DOWNLOADED FROM TH	THE JUDGMENT IN DATED 10.8.2016 E INTERNET.
ANNEXURE	3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PASSED IN WP.9344 1.10.2015.	THE INTERIM ORDER OF 2015 DATED
ANNEXURE	4	CERTIFIED COPY OF IN WP.9344 OF 2015	THE JUDGMENT PASSED DATED 18.7.2015.
ANNEXURE	5	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF FILED BY MAHESH FO THE RTI ACT SUBMIT	THE APPLICATION R INFORMATION UNDER TED ON 18.9.2019.
ANNEXURE	6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESPONDENT DAT	THE REPLY SENT BY ED 11.10.2019.
ANNEXURE	7	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PANCHAYATH TO DATE	THE LETTER OF D 17.10.2019.
ANNEXURE	8	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF TAKEN BY MANICKAL MEETING HELD ON 24	THE RESOLUTION 9/(1) PANCHAYATH IN THE .8.2019.
ANNEXURE	9	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF TAKEN BY MANICKAL MEETING HELD ON 24	THE RESOLUTION 9/(2) PANCHAYATH IN THE .8.2019.
ANNEXURE	10	PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PANCHAYATH BANNING PURAMBOKE FOR PEDE WHEELERS.	BOARD PUTUP BY THE THE USE OF THE STRAIN PASSAGE/TWO

¶37

Con.Case(C).No.1027 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9344/2015

¶38

..5..

¶39

ANNEXURE	11 THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ROCK PIECES DUMPED IN THE PASSAGE BY THE PANCHAYATH.
ANNEXURE	12 THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE JCB IN OPERATION IN THE PASSAGE ON 23.6.2020.
ANNEXURE	13 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE RESPONDENT AND PRESIDENT GIVEN ON 23.6.2020.
ANNEXURE	14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF THE NOTARY DATED 03.09.2020.
ANNEXURE	15(A) PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE GRANITE STONES BLOCKING ENTRY AT THE WESTERN END OF PASSAGE TOWARDS EAST FORM THE TARRED ROAD LYING IN NORTH - SOUTH DIRECTION.
ANNEXURE	15(B) PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT STATE OF THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PASSAGE TO THE PETITIONER'S HOUSE.
ANNEXURE	15(C) PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN FROM EAST-WEST DIRECTION SHOWING THE PRESENCE OF THE HOUSES UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PASSAGE.
ANNEXURE	15(D) PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN FROM THE EAST-WEST DIRECTION SHOWING THE PRESENCE OF THE NEARLY 4 FEET HIGH EARTH DEPOSITED BY THE PANCHAYAT TO OBSTRUCT THE USE OF THE PASSAGE.

¶40

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

ANNEXURE R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 03.09.2019 OF THE OVERSEER OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME. ANNEXURE R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT SITUATION OF THE PURAMBOKE

¶42

Con.Case(C).No.1027 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9344/2015

¶43

..6..

¶44

LAND.

¶45

ANNEXURE R1(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 02.11.2020. ANNEXURE R1(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT SITUATION OF THE PURAMBOKE LAND.

Sathikumari v. S.Prem Sankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathikumari v. S.Prem Sankar

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.R.Salim Raj Vs Chottanikkara Grama Panchayat

Jolly Pathrose.L Vs Thekerala State Election Commission

Joshy a. Chembarathy Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Sathidevi.K.v, Vs Payyannur Municipality

Sulfath Noufal Khan, Vs the Kerala State Election Commission

Thomaskutty Kurian Vs the Kerala State Election Commission