This High Court of Kerala concluded a contempt case alleging violation of an interim order. After an Advocate Commissioner reported alleged masonry work, the respondent offered an unconditional apology and proposed restoration. The court held no further proceedings were required due to the apology.
Contempt case is closed; no punishment imposed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.1818 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 6666/2017
PETITIONER/2ND & 3RD PETITIONERS:
1 M.G.MATHEW AGED 58 YEARS HIG-31, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036
2 SUMA JACOB KORAH, HIG- 32, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.DEEPAK SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR
RESPONDENT/5TH RESPONDENT:
SHAREEN HAFEES W/O. ABDUL WAHAB HAFEES, DOOR NO. TC 31/555, SHALIMAR HOUSE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010, (RESIDING AT GARDEN HEIGHTS, APART NO. 1, TC 4/1783-6, BELL HAVEN GARDENS, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER R1 BY ADV. KUM.NARAYANI HARIKRISHNAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT DONA AUGUSTINE- ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No.1818 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 6666/2017
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this contempt case alleging violation of Annexure-A1 order of this Court dated 25.07.2019 in W.P.(C) No.6666 of 2017, whereby this Court granted an interim order restraining the respondent herein, who is the 5th respondent in that writ petition, from proceeding further with the construction in the land in question, on the strength of Ext.R5(k) building permit, pending disposal of that writ petition. Paragraphs 13 to 15 of that order reads thus:
“13. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that, when the title of the 5th respondent is in serious dispute, on account of the fact that the land originally owned by the 3rd respondent, which is Public Trust, was sold on the strength of a resolution stated to have been passed on 08.05.2016, the 5th respondent cannot be permitted to carry out any further construction on the strength of Ext.R5(k) building permit dated 06.02.2019 granted by the Municipal Corporation.
Con.Case(C).No.1818 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 6666/2017
3
additional counter affidavit, explaining the facts and circumstances, with specific reference to Ext.R4(b) communication dated 16.01.2006.”
15.11.2020 in this contempt case.
Con.Case(C).No.1818 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 6666/2017
4
an affidavit, on 04.01.2021. Paragraph 4 of that affidavit reads thus:
“4. We are presently in Dubai since the last few months. I have verified with the caretaker and Project Engineer about the masonry covering of the pipe in the sunshade portion (as could be seen from Annexure C2) and could learn that the pipe was covered subsequent to the order of this Hon'ble Court. This was so done when the said pipe joint got broken/loosened due to the then heavy rains and when water started flowing into the basement floor where the electrical room is established. They had done the plastering over the pipe only to prevent the flooding of water into the basement floor and it was so done by the Project Engineer and the caretakers at their volition to cover the broken pipe with cement and brick pieces. They neither thought nor did intend such work as one tantamount to violation of the court order. They have done so only with the good intention and I came to know about the same (the said works) only after the filing of the contempt of court case. I unconditionally offer my apologies to the said acts of my caretakers and I am prepared to restore the anterior position of the pipe after removing the masonry work, which is only of a length of about two meters.”
Con.Case(C).No.1818 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 6666/2017
5
counsel on both sides, this Court finds that in view of the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent, no further proceedings need be taken in this contempt case, since the writ petition is still pending consideration.
Therefore, this contempt case is closed recording the unconditional apology made by the respondent.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
JUDGE
JV
Con.Case(C).No.1818 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 6666/2017
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO. 6666/2017 DATED 25.07.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
ANNEXURE A2 VIDEO RECORDINGS OF THE CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITIES BEING CARRIED OUT IN THE PLOT IN VIOLATION OF ANNEXURE A1 ORDER IN DVD FORMAT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
| ANNEXURE B1 | PHOTOGRAPHS | OF THE | BUILDING |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANNEXURE B1(A) | PHOTOGRAPHS | OF THE | BUILDING |
| ANNEXURE B1(B) | PHOTOGRAPHS | OF THE | BUILDING |
| ANNEXURE B1(C) | PHOTOGRAPHS | OF THE | BUILDING |
| ANNEXURE B1(D) | PHOTOGRAPHS | OF THE | BUILDING |
| ANNEXURE B1(E) | PHOTOGRAPHS | OF THE | BUILDING |
| ANNEXURE B1(F) | PHOTOGRAPHS | OF THE | BUILDING |
| ANNEXURE B1(G) | PHOTOGRAPHS | OF THE | BUILDING |
| ANNEXURE B1(H) | PHOTOGRAPHS | OF THE | BUILDING |
| ANNEXURE C1 | A TRUE COPY 01.12.2020 |
OF THE | NOTICE DATED |
| ANNEXURE C2 | TRUE COPY OF REFERRED IN |
THE P ANNEXU |
HOTOGRAPH OF HTE WORK RE A2 |
| ANNEXURE C3 | TRUE COPY OF ENTRANCE TO |
HTE P THE SI |
HOTOGRAPH SHOWING HTE TE |
| ANNEXURE C4 | COMPACT DISK DURING INSPE |
WITH CTION |
VIDEOGRAPHS RECORDED |
| ANNEXURE C5 | TRUE COPY OF PROVIDED BY |
THE E THE RE |
LECTRICITY BILLS SPONDENT |
Con.Case(C).No.1818 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 6666/2017
7
ANNEXURE C6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTORGRAPH ANNEXURE C7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS PROVIDED BY
THE RESPONDENT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to proceedings in a contempt case where the respondent has tendered an unconditional apology?
Whether interim orders in pending writ petitions restrain minor repair work justified by heavy rains?
M.G.Matthew
Suma Jacob Korah
Shareen Hafees
Anil K.Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
