Disposed

Shihab T P v. Sreelakshmi R

Kerala HC15 Dec 2022Con.Case(C)/1577/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a contempt petition alleging violation of an earlier order regarding the demolition of a bund by the Municipality. The respondent claimed the demolition was by the District Collector's direction due to public threat, not the respondent's orders. Finding no material to show the respondent acted to attract contempt provisions, the contempt case was closed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed without prejudice to petitioner's right to invoke remedies against the demolition.

Shihab T P Vs Sreelakshmi R — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1577 OF 2022

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCrl.MC 4423/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHIHAB T P AGED 50 YEARS S/O THONDIPPARAMBIL ALI, CHELAPPURATH HOUSE, CHERUVADI P.O MAVOOR VIA PENVAYAL KAYAL KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673661

¶8

BY ADV SANIL.E

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

SREELAKSHMI R SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF THE SUB-COLLECTOR, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD, PIN - 670645

¶11

BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

ADV. M. P. PRASHANT- PP

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1577 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.

¶18

------------------------------------ Con.Case (C) No.1577 of 2022

¶19

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2022

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This contempt of court case was submitted by the petitioner alleging violation of the orders passed by this Court in Crl.MC.4423/2022. The aforesaid Criminal MC was filed by the petitioner challenging the preliminary order passed by the respondent herein under Section 133 of Cr.PC. This Court as per order dated 07.07.2022 disposed of the said Criminal MC, clarifying that unless and until the preliminary order is finalized after completing the inquiry, the same cannot be implemented.

¶22

It is to be noted that, the preliminary order passed the Sub divisional Magistrate, was by directing the petitioner to remove a bund constructed using the soil in his property within seven days from the date of receipt of the order. This Court as per the order passed in Criminal MC directed that, the said order shall not be implemented, unless the same is

¶23

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1577 OF 2022

¶24

¶25

finalized after completing inquiry. However, the case of the petitioner is that, subsequent to the passing of the said order on 11.07.2022 the Municipal Secretary of Manathavadi Municipality and Assistant Engineer of the said municipality demolished the bund, situated in the property and the same amounts to violation of the orders of this Court. It is alleged that, it was done on the basis of the direction issued by the respondent.

¶26

In response to the averments contained in this contempt application, a statement as well as an affidavit filed by the respondent wherein it is mentioned that, the demolition as mentioned by the petitioner, in contempt petition was done by the Municipality on the basis of the directions issued by the District Collector in his capacity as the Chairperson of the District Disaster Management Authority. It was pointed out that, the local people started agitation as the water got stored in the aforesaid bund and it was causing threat to life and property of the local residents. In that circumstances, the District Disaster Management

¶27

¶28

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1577 OF 2022

¶29

Authority decided to demolish the said bund. Accordingly, the same was demolished by the municipality.

¶30

The petitioner pointed out that, the demolition was affected even prior to the said decision. However, even though there is some dispute as to the date of the order passed by the District Disaster Management Authority, it is evident from the records that, the aforesaid acts were committed by the Officers of the Municipality which is not disputed. Even though, the petitioner claim that such demolition was made, as per the directions of the respondent herein, there are absolutely no materials before me to arrive at such a conclusion.

¶31

On the other hand, in the affidavit, the respondent specifically stated that, no such orders and instructions were issued by the respondent. In such circumstances I do not find any material to hold that the respondent had committed any act which attracts the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act. In such circumstances, this contempt is closed without

¶32

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1577 OF 2022

¶33

¶34

prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke his remedies against the demolition of the parties.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶37

SAAP

¶38

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1577 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1577/2022

¶41

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶42

Annexure1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7TH JULY 2022

¶43

Annexure2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER U/S 133 CRPC NO. MC-65/2022 DATED 28/06/2022 Annexure3 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY ON 11/07/2022

¶44

Annexure4 A TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT TO SHO, MANANTHAVADY

¶45

Annexure5 A COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT OF THE REGISTERED POST

¶46

//True copy // PA to Judge

Shihab T P v. Sreelakshmi R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shihab T P v. Sreelakshmi R

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

Shabimol Vs State of Kerala

Swapna.T.D Vs State of Kerala

K. Vidyadharan, Vs State Police Chief

Aswanth Baji, Vs State of Kerala

Ambady Vs State of Kerala

Arun. S Vs the State of Kerala