Sri Adi Sankara Keerthi Sthambha Mandapam v. Rajesh

Kerala HC27 Oct 2021Con.Case(C)/1384/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court closed the contempt case pending against the Grama Panchayath and other respondents for alleged willful disobedience. The court did not proceed further, leaving legal and factual contentions open, as the petitioner had filed a separate contempt case challenging the judgment in the underlying writ petition. No substantive adjudication was made. This judgment is thin.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is closed, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides, without prejudice to their rights in Cont.Case(C)No.434 of 2021.

Sri Adi Sankara Keerthi Sthambha Mandapam Vs Rajesh — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1384 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER dated 26.08.2020 IN WP(C)No.35193/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SRI ADI SANKARA KEERTHI STHAMBHA MANDAPAM KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 574, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, SRI.K.S.VENKATESWARAN, S/O.K.V.SREENIVASA IYER, AGED 74 YEARS. BY ADVS. K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 RAJESH AGED 50 YEARS FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE SECRETARY, KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 574

¶11

2 SRI. LATHEEF AGED 50 YEARS FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALADY POLICE STATION, KALADY MALAYATTOOR ROAD, KALADY, PIN-683 574

¶12

3 M.J.SANTHOSH S/O.LATE JAYAPALAN, MANIYALIL HOUSE, MATTOOR, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 574, PROPRIETOR, M/S. KANNAMA FASHIONS (KANNAMA TEXTILES) STATE HIGHWAY 1, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 574

¶13

4 JAYASREE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PRESENT SECRETARY, KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN 683574

¶14

------IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 25/02/2021 IN IA 01/2021

¶15

¶16

Cont.case(c)1384 OF 2020

¶17

5 ADDL.R5.LIJO AUGUSTINE AGED 50 YEARS (SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED)

¶18

BY ADVS. SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH

¶19

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Cont.case(c)1384 OF 2020 3

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner has filed this Contempt Case, alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure E order of this Court dated 26.08.2020 in W.P.(C)No.35193 of 2019.

¶23

On 22.09.2020, when this Contempt Case came up for admission, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent sought time to file an affidavit, explaining the facts and circumstances. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the 2^nd respondent Station House Officer is not a party to Annexure E order.

¶24

This Court has passed various orders in this Contempt

¶25

Case. The 5^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit on 17.09.2021 and the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit on 27.09.2021 to the counter affidavit.

¶26

During the pendency of this Contempt Case, by judgment dated 28.09.2020, this Court disposed of W.P. (C)No.35193 of 2019 with the following directions;

¶27

“In such circumstances, the Panchayath is directed to initiate action. It is appropriate that all further issues related to the deviations and illegal constructions be addressed in such proceedings. The Panchayath shall also afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in such

¶28

Cont.case(c)1384 OF 2020 4

¶29

exercise. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the Panchayath to initiate action in accordance with law and conclude the same within a period of thirty days. However, it is made clear that the interim order in regard to the third floor would remain into force until such construction of the third floor is regularized in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above.”

¶30

As held by this Court in Valsala Kumari Devi M. v. B.

¶31

Srinivas I.A.S and others [2018 (5) KHC 59] , a Court considering a Contempt Petition need only be satisfied that there is no deliberate and willful action not to comply with the judgment. In the process of such adjudication, the Court need not also analyse the order passed in compliance with the direction, in forensic precision and skill, so as to unearth the illegality of the order and proceed in contempt. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said decision read thus;

¶32

“13. The stand adopted by the 3^rd respondent is on the basis of a legal circumstance and this Court is not expected to go deeply into the merits of the matter in a contempt proceedings. Be it noted in a contempt proceeding the sole aspect that is to be identified is, whether there is any wilful and contumacious act on the part of the respondents so as to undermine the prestige and dignity of this Court. Which thus also means, there is no legal inhibition created in adopting a fair and legal stand on the basis of an opinion

¶33

Cont.case(c)1384 OF 2020 5

¶34

formed with bonafides. True, the opinion so formed may be incorrect and illegal, but that by itself cannot be converted or transformed so as to have a cause of action for proceeding in contempt. This is more so, since petitioner is left with a remedy to seek adjudication of the issue in a suitably constituted proceedings. So much so, a court considering a contempt petition need only be satisfied that there is no deliberate and wilful action not to comply with the judgment. In the process of such adjudication, this Court need not also analyse the order passed in compliance with the direction, with forensic precision and skill, so as to unearth the illegality of the order and proceed in contempt. Apart from all these, the legal contentions raised against declining increment is demonstrative of the fact that, serious and material adjudication is required to the issue.

¶35

Therefore, if the petitioner has any grievance against the orders passed accordingly, and the petitioner is entitled to more benefits in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in the judgment, it is for the petitioner to pursue the said remedy. Further, evaluation of the circumstances put forth by the rival parties, instils confidence in me that there is no wilful and deliberate attempt on the part of the respondents to interfere with the integrity, prestige and dignity of this Court. That being the situation, I am of the considered opinion that, the respondents have not committed any contempt of the judgment rendered by this Court.”

¶36

Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, it

¶37

¶38

is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment dated 28.09.2020 in W.P.(C)No.35193 of 2019, the petitioner has filed Cont.Case(C)No.434 of 2021, which is pending consideration before the learned Judge, who has disposed that writ petition.

¶39

In such circumstances, I do not propose to proceed further in this contempt case and the same is accordingly closed, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides, and without prejudice to their right to prosecute/contest Cont.Case(C)No.434 of 2021.

¶40

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶46

ANNEXURE A	TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXHIBITS IN W.P.(C).NO.35913/2020 DATED 20.01.2020.
ANNEXURE B	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1STBRESPONDENT ALONG WITH ANNEXURE IN W.P.(C).NO.35913/2020 DATED 26.08.2020.
ANNEXURE C	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 10.1.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT WHICH IS PRODUCED AS EXT R6(H) IN HIS COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN W.P.(C).NO.35193/2020.
ANNEXURE D	TRUE COPY OF THE PAMPHLET CIRCULATED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE LOCALITY AND RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER
ANNEXURE E	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2020 IN W.P.(C).NO.35193 OF 2019 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
ANNEXURE F	TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT DATED 27.08.2020 ISSUED FROM KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
ANNEXURE G	ORIGINAL OF THE BILL ISSUED FROM 3RD RESPONDENT'S TEXTILE SHOP M/S.KANNAMA FASHIONS ON 29.08.2020.
ANNEXURE H	CLEAR PHOTOCOPY OF ANNEXURE - G.
ANNEXURE I	TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 29.08.2020 AT 3.06.P.M. FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH COMPLAINT.
ANNEXURE J	TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIA EMAIL DATED 29.08.2020 AT 3.24 HRS.
ANNEXURE K	ORIGINAL OF THE SALE BILL ISSUED FROM M/S.KANNAMA FASHIONS, THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.08.2020.
ANNEXURE L	ORIGINAL OF THE SALE BILL ISSUED FROM M/S.KANNAMA FASHIONS, THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07.09.2020.

¶47

¶48

ANNEXURE M TYPED COPY OF ANNEXURE -K. ANNEXURE N TYPED COPY OF ANNEXURE -L. ANNEXURE 0 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S SHOP TAKEN ON 29.08.2020, 5.9.2020 AND 6.9.2020.

¶49

ANNEXURE P TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SERVED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE COUNSEL OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C).35193/2019 WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER ON 24-05-2020 ALONG WITH EXHIBITS.

¶50

ANNEXURE Q TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A2-3241/2020 DATED 6.9.2020 SERVED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶51

5TH RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

¶52

ANNEXURE R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.A2-4004/2018 DATED 20.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSITANT ENGINEER (LSGD) ALONG WITH STATEMENT.

¶53

TRUE COPY

¶54

P.A. TO JUDGE

Sri Adi Sankara Keerthi Sthambha Mandapam v. Rajesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Adi Sankara Keerthi Sthambha Mandapam v. Rajesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chathamkulam Foundation Charitable Trust Vs Dr.E.K.Satheesh

Sanjeev Vs Sri Suhas S, IAS

Daisy Chacko, Vs P.K.Ramesan

A.Radhakrishnan Vs M.P.Dinesh

P.Valsala Amma @ Valsala, Vs Haridas

Joju.J.Mangaly Vs State of Kerala