Disposed

Shajahan Y. v. Salil Evugin

Kerala HC17 Sept 2020Con.Case(C)/1191/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt proceeding, the Court recorded the undertaking of the respondent Panchayath Secretary to comply with prior directions regarding the petitioner's quarry license renewal, noting that the vigilance case was based on mistaken facts. The Court ordered the Special Judge to forward orders to the Panchayath and dismissed the contempt case without keeping it pending.

What did the court decide?

The respondent Panchayath Secretary undertook to reconsider the licence renewal application within one week; the contempt case was disposed of with a direction to treat non-compliance as a basis for r

Shajahan Y. Vs Salil Evugin — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 26TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Con.Case(C).No.1191 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9233/2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9233/2020(D) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):

¶8

SHAJAHAN Y. AGED 48 YEARS S/O.YUSUF KUNJU, RESIDINJG AT AMEENA MANZIL, NEDUMONKAVU P.O., KOLLAM - 691509.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA

¶10

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):

¶11

SALIL EVUGIN

¶12

FATHERS NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS SECRETARY, VELIYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VELIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691540.

¶13

SRI.M.R.SASITH

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Cont.Case (C) No.1191 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 9233 of 2020

¶16

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

=================================

¶19

Cont.Case (C) No.1191 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 9233 of 2020

¶20

================================= Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2020

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The above said Cont.case (C) has been filed alleging noncompliance of the directions issued by this Court in Annexure-A1 judgment dated 23.03.2020 in W.P.(C) No.9233/2020, filed by the petitioner herein. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of Annexure A1 judgment reads as follows:

¶23

“4. Sri.M.R. Jayalatha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Ext.P6 application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of D & O Licence for conducting his quarry has now been rejected as per impugned Ext.P7 order by the 2^nd respondent-Secretary of Veliyam Grama Panchayath on the ground that if licence for earlier revoke due to the pendency of proceedings before the Vigilance and anti-corruption Bureau, etc. According to the petitioner now the additional 3^rd respondent -Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau), Kollam) has submitted Ext.P5 final report dated 21.12.2019 before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, referring the vigilance case as mistake of fact and to drop the further proceedings in that regard. The final paragraph of Ext.P5 final report dated 21.12.2019 submitted by the additional 3^rd respondent before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram reads as follows:

¶24

Cont.Case (C) No.1191 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 9233 of 2020

¶25

¶26

" ആകയയൽ ഈ കകസസ വയസവ സസഗതതയയ യതറതദരതച കകസസ ആയത (mistake of fact) പരതഗണതചസ ഈ കകസതയന തതടർ നടപടതകൾ അവസയനതപതകതനതതകലകസ (Further Action Dropped) ഫഫനൽ റതകപയർടസ ബഹതമയനയപട കകയടതത മതൻപയയക സമർപതച അകപകതചതയകയളതനത "

¶27

5. As a matter of fact, Ext.P5 report has been given referring the vigilance case, then the impugned decision in Ext.P8 would warrant serious re-consideration at the hands of the respondent Grama Panchayath.

¶28

6. Accordingly, Ext.P7 rejection order dated 17.12.2019 will stand set aside and Ext.P6 application submitted by the petitioner before the Secretary of Veliyam Grama Panchayath for renewal of the D & O Licence for the conduct of his quarry will stand remitted to the 2^nd respondent-Secretary of the Veliyam Grama Panchayath for consideration afresh. To avoid delay it is ordered that the additional 3^rd respondentDeputy Superintendent of Police will issue a letter to the 2^nd respondent-Secretary of Veliyam Grama Panchayath stating as to whether the vigilance case No.BC5/2017/Kollam has been referred as per Ext.P5 report dated 21.12.2019, etc. and also as to the present stage of the case before the court of the Enquiry Commissioner for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau who is dealing with the said vigilance case and as to whether the said Ext.P5 refer report has been accepted, etc. The said letter shall be duly issued by the additional 3^rd respondent-Deputy Superintendent of Police to the 2^nd respondent-Secretary of the Veliyam Grama Panchayath without much delay, preferably within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Thereafter the 2^nd respondent-Secretary of Veliyam Grama Panchayath furnish a copy of the said letter, issued by the additional 3^rd respondent to the petitioner and the petitioner will be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing

¶29

Cont.Case (C) No.1191 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 9233 of 2020

¶30

¶31

and then orders should be passed on Ext.P6 application, in accordance with law, without much delay, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the said letter from the 3^rd respondent and also duly taking note of the contents of the said letter issued by the 3^rd respondent as well as Ext.P5 report.”

¶32

In furtherance of Annexure-A1 judgment, the Deputy Superindent of Police (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau), Kollam (Additional R3 in Annexure-A1 W.P.(C) No.9233/2020), has already intimated the respondent Panchayath Secretary about the submission of the refer report in this case on the conclusion and completion of the investigation and that the refer report has been duly filed by the said officer before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, which is a special court filing offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Since a doubt was expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, as to whether the final report is a refer report or a charge sheet. This Court had directed the Registry to get a report from the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, who is dealing with the said case, as to the nature of the final report so filed by the Investigating Officer. Now, the learned court of Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, has furnished a report dated 14.09.2020, wherein it has been inter alia stated that, after the conclusion of the investigation, the Deputy

¶33

Cont.Case (C) No.1191 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 9233 of 2020

¶34

¶35

Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kollam has filed a referred charge sheet before the said court on 24.12.2019 in V.C.No.5/2017/Kollam stating that the allegations are based on mistaken facts and therefore further action is to be dropped. Further, it is also stated in the said report that the said court has issued a notice on the defacto complainant to take further steps as per the procedure on the said refer report filed by the Investigating agency and that the defacto complainant has entered appearance through counsel on 19.08.2020 and has sought for time to file objections to the said refer report and now V.C.No.5/2017/Kollam stands adjourned to 31.10.2020 for filing of objections and further that the said court will take a decision, as to whether the said refer report filed by the Investigating Officer is to be accepted or not, within three months from 31.10.2020. Hence, from the above said report of the competent court, it can be seen that what has been filed by the Investigating Officer in V.C.No.5/2017/Kollam is a refer report before the competent court stating that on completion of the investigation, it has been revealed that the allegations are based on mistaken facts and hence further action is to be dropped.

¶36

Accordingly, Sri. M.R.Sasith, the learned counsel

¶37

appearing for the respondent Panchayath Secretary would submit that the said officer will immediately comply with the directions issued by this

¶38

Cont.Case (C) No.1191 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 9233 of 2020

¶39

¶40

Court in Annexure-A1 judgment on the application submitted by the petitioner herein before the above said respondent officer for renewal of D & O license for the conduct of his quarry within one week, taking note of the fact that what has been filed by the Investigating Officer is a refer report stating that the allegations are based on mistaken fact and therefore, action is to be dropped etc., and that it will be made clear in the renewal of the trade license that such renewal should be subject to the orders passed by the Court of Special Judge & Enquiry Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram in V.C.No.5/2017/Kollam on the issue as to whether or not the said refer report is to be accepted by the said court.

¶41

It is also pointed out by the respondent officer that hearing of the petitioner has already been duly completed and hence orders should be passed on the said application for renewal of trade license within one week. The above said submissions and undertakings made by the respondent Panchayath Secretary are recorded.

¶42

Further, in the interest of justice, it is ordered that, immediately after passing of orders on the issue as to whether the refer report in V.C.No.5/2017/Kollam has been accepted or not, the court of the Special Judge & Enquiry Commissioner will ensure that the Sheristadar of that court will forward copies of the said order so passed

¶43

Cont.Case (C) No.1191 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 9233 of 2020

¶44

¶45

by the above said court to the Secretary, Veliyam Grama Panchayath, Veliyam, Kollam as well as to the petitioner.

¶46

In the light of these aspects, this Cont.Case (c) need not be kept pending any longer. However, it is made clear that, if the respondent officer does not comply with the directions in Annexure-A1 judgment within a reasonable time limit, then the petitioner will be at liberty to file an appropriate application to reopen the above said contempt proceedings, in which case this Court will have to take a very serious view of the matter.

¶47

The Registry will forward a certified copy of this judgment to the Court of Special Judge & Enquiry Commissioner, Thriruvananthapuram, who is dealing with V.C.No.5/2017/Kollam, for necessary information.

¶48

With these observations and directions, the above Cont.Case(C) will stand disposed of.

¶49

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶50

¶51

Cont.Case (C) No.1191 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 9233 of 2020

¶52

¶53

APPENDIX

¶54

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶55

ANNEXURE A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C) 9233 OF 2020 DATED 23/3/2020. ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DATED 2/6/2020. ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE VELIYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28/7/2020. ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION ISSUED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DATED 17/7/2020.

¶56

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Shajahan Y. v. Salil Evugin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shajahan Y. v. Salil Evugin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh, Vs State of Kerala

Soumya N. Vs District Police Chief

Hemalatha Vs State of Kerala

Kamarudheen P. Vs the State of Kerala

P.P.Tony Vs Bindhu

Fort-in Ifra Developers Private Limited Vs Mr.Harikumar