Dismissed

Peace Foundation, v. M.v.Suresh Kumar

Kerala HC15 Sept 2021Con.Case(C)/1137/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt proceeding, the petitioner alleged wilful disobedience of an interim order directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider a specific application. The Respondent filed an affidavit with an order clarifying that the application in question was not filed under the specific clause cited in the interim order. The Court examined the application and found the Respondent's distincti

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the writ petition for appropriate relief.

Peace Foundation, Vs M.v.Suresh Kumar — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 24TH BHADRA,

¶5

1943

¶6

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1137 OF 2021

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 5614/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER/PETITIONER :

¶9

PEACE FOUNDATION, (PACHOMIOUS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE ENLIGHTENMENT FOUNDATION) TRUST, REGISTERED OFFICE AT ST.GEORGE ORTHODOX KARMELKUNNU CHURCH, MULAKKULAM NORTH P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 664, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY JAMES JOSE, AGED 58, S/O.A.C.IYPE, ANTHIYALUNKAL HOUSE, PERUMBADAVOM P.O., ELANJI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 665.

¶10

BY ADVS. P.K.SOYUZ E.V.BABYCHAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1 :

¶12

M.V.SURESH KUMAR, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.VISWANATHAN, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MOOVATTUPUZHA, MINI CIVIL STATION, MUDAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 669.

¶13

BY SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Contempt Case (C) No.1137 of 2021

¶17

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶18

Contempt Case (C) No.1137 of 2021

¶19

Dated this the 15^th day of September, 2021

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

This proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act is instituted alleging wilful disobedience of Annexure-I interim order passed by this Court on 19.3.2021 in W.P.(C)No.5614 of 2021.

¶22

W.P.(C)No.5614 of 2021 was one instituted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P15 communication issued to them by the first respondent therein calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs.56 lakhs towards the fee payable on the application preferred by them under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act) in respect of the land referred to in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the application on which they have been issued

¶23

¶24

Contempt Case (C) No.1137 of 2021

¶25

Ext.P15 communication is one which happened to be filed on a wrong legal advice and insofar as they have preferred Ext.P12 application as early as on 12.3.2014 for permission in terms of Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order in respect of the very same land and insofar as the same was pending consideration, it was unnecessary for them to prefer an application under Section 27A of the Act.

¶26

In the light of the case aforesaid set out by the petitioner in the writ petition, in terms of the interim order dated 19.3.2021, this Court directed the first respondent in the writ petition to consider and pass orders on Ext.P12 application in the light of the decisions of this Court in Renji K Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer , 2019 (2) KLT 262 and Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer , 2019 (3) KLT 838. As noted, it is alleging wilful non-compliance of the said order that this contempt case is instituted.

¶27

An affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating, among others, that the direction contained in the interim order dated 19.3.2021 has already been complied with.

¶28

¶29

Contempt Case (C) No.1137 of 2021

¶30

An order dated 07.8.2021 stated to have been passed in compliance with the said interim order has also been produced by the respondent along with the affidavit as Annexure-A. It is stated, among others, in Annexure-A order that Ext.P12 application in the writ petition is not one preferred under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order; that the said application cannot also be considered as one preferred under clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, for there is no prayer in the said application for permission to make use of the land for other purposes and that instead, the prayer in Ext.P12 application is for permission to construct an addition to a building constructed in the property violating the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. It is also stated by the respondent in Annexure-A order that unlike in the case on hand, Renji K Paul and Geo Peter are cases where the parties have preferred applications specifically under clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order and that therefore, the decisions therein have no application to the facts of the present case.

¶31

I have called for the writ petition and perused

¶32

¶33

Contempt Case (C) No.1137 of 2021

¶34

Ext.P12 application preferred by the petitioner which was directed to be disposed of in terms of the interim order which is sought to be enforced in this proceedings. It is seen that there is no reference to clause 6(2) of the Land Utilization Order in Ext.P12 application. Likewise, the prayer in Ext.P12 application is also as stated by the respondent in Annexure A order.

¶35

In the circumstances, having regard to the fact that the contempt proceedings is in respect of an interim order which is passed by this Court in a pending writ petition and the factual finding rendered by the respondent in Annexure A order referred to above, I am of the view that the alleged conduct of the respondent cannot be said to be wilful.

¶36

The contempt case, in the circumstances, is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the writ petition for appropriate relief.

¶37

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

¶38

rkj

¶39

¶40

Contempt Case (C) No.1137 of 2021

¶41

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1137/2021

¶42

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

¶43

Annexure I TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC NO.5614 OF 2021 DATED 19.03.2021. Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3-7665/19 DATED 06.07.2021 OF THE RDO, MOOVATTUPUZHA. Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN KUMARADASAN NAIR J. AND ANOTHER V. IRIC SOHAN AND OTHERS, 2009 KHC 241.

Peace Foundation, v. M.v.Suresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peace Foundation, v. M.v.Suresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Wills Janardhanan Vs State of Kerala

G.Balakrishnan Nair, Vs State of Kerala

Malabar Regional Co-Operative Milk Producer'S Union Limited Vs National Insurance Company Limited

Dr.Raghavan Vs Union of India

V.N.Ambujakshan, Vs the District Police Chief

Mohammed Shamer, Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to the Home Department