High Court closed a contempt petition alleging an Assistant Executive Engineer issued an incompetent demolition order violating court directions. The judge declined to adjudicate jurisdictional issues under contempt jurisdiction, reserving full liberty for the petitioners to challenge the order in the appropriate forum.
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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944
CON.CASE(C) NO. 22 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT dated 06.04.2022 in WP(C) 1288/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS:
1 M.A JOSE AGED 69 YEARS S/O ANTHONY,MUTTATH HOUSE,KLM ROAD, PULLAZHI P.O., THRISSUR PIN - 680012
2 JAMES A. G., S/O GEORGE, AGED 55, ALAPPAT PONTHEKAN HOUSE, KLM ROAD, PULLAZHI P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680012 BY ADV DILIP J. AKKARA
RESPONDENT:
NAVEEN A.K., S/O KUMARAN, AYYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS , KOTHAPARAMBU P.O., ALA VILLAGE, SN PURAM, KODUNGALLUR-680668, THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SECTION, CHEMBUKAVU, THIRISSUR, PIN - 680668
SMT.PARVATHY.K-GP
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CON.CASE(C) NO.22 of 2023
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges that Annexure-4 order issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads Division) is an incompetent one, issued by an Authority which had no jurisdiction; and further that it has been issued without considering his objection, though specifically so ordered by this Court. He added that, within a period of two days after Annexure-4 order, the building in question was demolished; thus incapacitating him from invoking any remedy.
CON.CASE(C) NO.22 of 2023
3
otherwise, is beyond the purview of this Court, while it acts under the Contempt of Court jurisdiction. The petitioners certainly have every right to challenge Annexure-4 on all grounds available, including that this has been issued by the incompetent Authority and that action pursuant thereto has been taken hastily.
In the afore circumstances, I close this Contempt Case with the afore liberty being fully reserved to the petitioners.
Sd/-DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE
lsn
CON.CASE(C) NO.22 of 2023
4
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 22/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure7 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT Annexure2 PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT NO: B4/372708/22DATED 26-4-22 ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO 1ST PETITIONER Annexure3 PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT NO: B4/372708723/22DATED 26-4-22 ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO 2ND PETITIONER Annexure4 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.A3CASE/GENERAL/2022 DATED 1-12-22 ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER
Annexure5 PHOTOCOPY OF EVICTION ORDER NO. A3CASE/GENERAL/2022 DATED 01-12-22 ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER
Annexure6 PHOTO OF DEMOLITION OF PETITIONERS COMPOUND WALL AND GATE USING BULLDOZER Annexure 6(a) PHOTO OF DEMOLITION OF HOUSE COMPOUND WALL OF PETITIONER OF CONNECTED WP(C) 7076/22
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
LSN
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the incompetence of the authority issuing a demolition order or the violation of its jurisdiction can be adjudicated under the Contempt of Court jurisdiction.
Whether the urgent demolition of a building precludes the immediate adjudication of a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a prior judgment.
What liberty must be reserved to petitioners when a contempt case is closed due to jurisdictional limitations regarding the underlying administrative order.
M.A JOSE
JAMES A. G.
NAVEEN A.K.
SMT.PARVATHY.K-GP
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
