Disposed

Joy v. Saji Tg.

Kerala HC20 Oct 2021Con.Case(C)/1638/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case, the petitioner challenged the lack of action regarding an unauthorized autorickshaw stand. The Court found that the respondent Panchayat had passed orders prohibiting the stand and directed officials to ensure compliance, noting that affirmative orders favoring the petitioner existed.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Case is closed as the Court is satisfied that directions were considered and orders passed.

Joy Vs Saji Tg. — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1638 OF 2021 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA, 1943

¶6

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1638 OF 2021

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.09.2020 IN WP(C) 18928/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

JOY, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O KURIYAPPAN, MANGALAN HOUSE, CHUNGAL DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680684.

¶10

BY ADV N.L.BITTO

¶11

RESPONDENTS/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶12

1 SAJI T.G., AGE AND FATHER'S NAME AND ADDRESS NOT KNOWN, THE FORMER SECRETARY, MATTATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MATTATHUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680684.

¶13

2 HABEEB VAZHAYIL, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME AND ADDRESS NOT KNOWN, THE SECRETARY, MATTATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MATTATHUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680684.

¶14

BY ADVS. M.R.VENUGOPAL, SC DHANYA P.ASHOKAN

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1638 OF 2021 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This Contempt Case is filed alleging non-compliance of the judgment dated 15.09.2020 in W.P.(C) No.18928 of 2020.

¶19

2. While disposing of the writ petition this Court had directed the

¶20

respondent herein to take up Exhibit-P3 representation filed by the petitioner and take a decision, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the affected parties.

¶21

The contention of the petitioner is that no orders as directed has been passed by the respondent. It is contended that the grievance of the petitioner was to initiate action based on the representation submitted by him and to remove the unauthorised autorickshaw stand which was causing obstruction to the establishment of the petitioner.

¶22

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit that in order to comply with the directions issued by this Court, a Traffic Advisory Committee was constituted and the site was inspected on more than one occasion. The committee noted that there was no sufficient space for parking of vehicles and a report to that effect was submitted. The Panchayat Committee considered the report and

¶23

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1638 OF 2021 3

¶24

decided not to grant sanction for the functioning of the Autorickshaw stand in the place complained of by the petitioner and Annexure-R2(a) decision was taken. Immediately thereafter, Annexure-R2(b) order was passed by the Secretary prohibiting the functioning of the Autorickshaw stand at the Avittappilly Junction. It is further stated that the Secretary has issued Annexure-R2(c) and R2(d) communications to the Station House Officer, Vellikulangara and Joint RTO, Chalakudy, and sought for initiating appropriate measures to ensure that the order passed by the Panchayat is implemented.

¶25

Adv.Bitto, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that practically the auto stand is functioning in the very same area and the directions are only in the papers.

¶26

Adv.Dhanya P. Ashokan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the Panchayat has already issued orders prohibiting the parking of the autorickshaws. It is submitted that the Panchayat shall ensure that the orders passed by the Panchayat are implemented in its letter and spirit.

¶27

Having considered the submissions, I am of the view that nothing further survives in this Contempt Case. The only direction was to consider and pass orders on the representations submitted by the petitioner. The Annexures produced by the respondents would reveal that affirmative orders

¶28

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1638 OF 2021 4

¶29

have been passed in favour of the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall pursue the matter and ensure that the directions issued by the Panchayat are complied with.

¶30

This Contempt Case (C) is closed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

DSV

¶35

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1638 OF 2021 5

¶36

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1638/2021

¶37

PETITIONER (S) ANNEXURE:

¶38

Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.18928 OF 2020 DATED 15/09/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶39

RESPONDENT (S) ANNEXURE:

¶40

Annexure R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 02.02.2021 OF THE MATTATHUR PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE. Annexure R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1-6286/20 DATED 03.02.2021 PASSED BY THIS RESPONDENT. Annexure R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A64396/21 DATED 14.06.2021 ISSUED TO THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VELLIKULANGARA BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Annexure R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A64396/21 DATED 14.06.2021 ISSUED TO THE JOINT R.T.O., CHALAKUDY BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Joy v. Saji Tg.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy v. Saji Tg.

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

Ranjitha v., Vs State of Kerala

Noufal Salam Vs S. Rajendran

Bushrabi Ap Vs State of Kerala

Juli R.L. Vs Director of General Educations

The Principal, Vs Central Board of Secondary Examination

Vellappally Natesan Vs T. Narayanan IPS