Disposed

Anilkumar v. Anil Kumar K

Kerala HC21 Jan 2020Con.Case(C)/35/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to accommodate, the petitioner alleged that the first respondent violated the court's directions by granting a temporary licence to the second respondent. The court held that while an affront to directions warranted action, since the authority would withdraw the licence, no further action was taken, closing the contempt case.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is closed with the recording of the first respondent's undertaking to withdraw the temporary licence within two days.

Anilkumar Vs Anil Kumar K — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 1ST MAGHA, 1941

¶5

Con.Case(C).No.35 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 31335/2018

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31335/2018(N)

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

ANILKUMAR, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.KUTTAPPAN, KUZHIYAPPARA, VARAPPETTY, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686691

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 ANIL KUMAR K AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS SECRETARY, VARAPPETTY PANCHAYATH, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686691

¶12

2 SRI.V.K.JANARDHANAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR,

¶13

VKJ AND CO., RESIDING AT VADAKKE PUTENPURAYIL, VARAPPETTY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM

¶14

IS SUOMOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.01.2020 IN COC 35/2020

¶15

SRI.S.JIJI, SC SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY

¶16

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Con.Case(C).No.35 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This case has been filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31335/2018 alleging that in egregious violation of the directions therein, the first respondent has granted a temporary licence to run a Hot Mix Plant to the second respondent. The petitioner says that this Court had directed the first respondent to consider the second respondent's application for regularisation of his building and only if it is found to be deserving of so regularised, to consider his application for Trade Licence and issue orders thereon after hearing all sides. The petitioner says that contrary to this, even the first respondent has not yet found the building of the second respondent to be deserving of regularisation, he has, nevertheless, granted a Trade Licence to the latter to run the Hot Mix Plant. He, therefore, alleges that the first respondent is in deliberate violation of the directions of this Court.

¶21

In response, the learned counsel for the first

¶22

respondent submitted that the afore allegations of the petitioner are not correct because the application of the second respondent for regularisation of his building is still pending for final orders; but that in the meanwhile, on account of the public interest projected by the District Collector and

¶23

¶24

Con.Case(C).No.35 OF 2020

¶25

such other officials, for the purpose of maintaining certain roads, which works are of extreme urgent character, a temporary licence under Rule 68 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules has been granted to the second respondent. He submits that in view of the allegations made by the petitioner herein, the first respondent is intending to withdraw the same in two days.

¶26

Sri.Jobi Jose Kondody, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, who has been impleaded under the orders of this Court, affirms that his client's application for regularisation of the building is still pending at the hands of the first respondent but that the temporary Trade Licence has been given to him only with respect to certain works which has to be completed urgently. He says, therefore, that no further action being pursued against the respondents in this case.

¶27

When I consider the afore submissions made on behalf of the respondents, it is without doubt that the directions of this Court in the judgment had not been complied with by the first respondent till now. It is conceded by the respondents that the application of the second respondent for regularisation of building permit has yet not been finally considered but that

¶28

Con.Case(C).No.35 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

a temporary licence has been granted to him. Hence, whatever be the reasons stated by the first respondent, the grant of a licence to the second respondent, be that permanent or temporary, clearly is an affront to the directions of this Court. Obviously therefore, further action normally would have to be taken against the first respondent under the Contempt Court Act and under Section 215 of the Constitution of India. However, since the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that they are intending to withdraw the temporary licence granted to the second respondent, I deem it appropriate not to take any further action in this contempt case and to close it; recording the submissions made on behalf of the first respondent that the afore said licence issued to the second respondent will be withdrawn within a period of two days from today.

¶31

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶32

Stu

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Con.Case(C).No.35 OF 2020

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

ANNEXURE	A1	THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2019 IN WPC.NO.31335/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
ANNEXURE	A2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
RESPONDE	NT'S	EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE	R1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SRI V.K JANARDHANAN DATED 20-12-2019.
ANNEXURE	R2	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SRI V.K JANARDHANAN DATED 28-12-2019
ANNEXURE	R3	TRUE COPY OF THE MINISTER RECOMMENDED APPLICATION OF SRI.V.K JANARDHANAN DATED 23-12-2019.
ANNEXURE	R4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18-12-2019 ISSUED BY SRI ANTONY JOHN M.L.A. TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
ANNEXURE	R5	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27-12-2019 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE	R6	TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.7(1) TAKEN BY THE VARAPETTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH COUNCIL CONDUCTED ON 01-01-2020
ANNEXURE	R7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. HC7424/2019 DATED 01- 01-2020 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY VARAPPETTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶39

//TRUE COPY//

¶40

P.A TO JUDGE.

Anilkumar v. Anil Kumar K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar v. Anil Kumar K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. John Vs John Joseph

M.K.Chellappan Vs P.N.Prasad

Kavitha K Karunakaran Vs Girijakumari Ayyappan

P.U.Scaria Vs v.P.Joy

I.R.Jose Vs Radhakrishnan P

The Varappetty Grama Panchayath Vs Anilkumar