IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1864 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.27418/2008 Dated 09/09/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SENSO V.SCARIA, S/O.SCARIA AGED 26 YRS, VADAKKEKKUDIYIL HOUSE, VADAKODU, VAZHAKKULAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DR.M.BEENA, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 2. MANJULLA, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, VILLGE OFFICER, MANJALOOR VILLAGE, KATHALIKKADU.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. BIJU K.STEPHEN, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. M.SULOCHANA, AGED AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, MANJALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VAZHAKKULAM.P.O,ERNAKULAM DIST. 5. T.L.GEORGE, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THOTTUMARIKKAL HOUSE, VADAKODU, VAZHAKKULAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PELADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON 27/01/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C).No.1864 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. When this matter came up on 9.1.2009, I had dictated a judgment that the contempt case is closed. After that order was dictated in Court, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent in this contempt case mentioned that he could not reach the Court in time and wanted this matter to be listed for consideration of counter affidavits. I thought it appropriate to do so. Hence it was ordered that this matter be listed along with the judges papers in W.P(C).27418/08, the matter in relation to which, the case on alleged enlargement is filed. 2. Having perused the papers of this case and the judges papers in W.P(C).27418/08, I am clear in my mind that this is essentially a case where this Court was being taken for a ride when this contempt case was moved and an order obtained issuing notice to respondents 2 to 4, who are public officers, COC.1864/08 Page numbers calling upon them to file affidavits. The reason why I say so are the following: 3. The writ petition was filed on 8.9.2008 holding out Exts.P2, P4 and P5, which were communications issued by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives and the Municipal authorities. Accordingly, an interim order was issued on 9.9.2008 that in the light of those documents, there would be no quarrying operations without obtaining required licenses and certificates from the Grama Panchayat, Explosives Controller, Geologist, Pollution Control Board, Police force and Rescue Department and in terms of the relevant statutes and regulations. 4. It is seen that the counter affidavit of the 10th respondent in W.P(C).27418/08 was filed on 17.11.2008, after serving copy on the counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. For whatever they are worth, Ext.R10(a) to R10(j) produced along with that counter affidavit are shown to be permissions, licences, clearance documents, quarry permit, Panchayat COC.1864/08 Page numbers licence etc. On that day itself, the 10th respondent had filed I.A.14755/08 in that writ petition to lift the interim order issued at the stage of admission, which is the one forming the basis of the contempt of court case in hand. While the writ petition was pending at the aforesaid stage, with the application to vacate the interim order, this contempt court case was filed on 18.12.2008, after sending representation dated 16.12.2008, taking the firm stand that the interim order dated 9.9.2008 is flouted. 5. The bold assertion in para 4 of this case is that the 10th respondent in the writ petition has not obtained the due licences, permits etc. The fact that the 10th respondent had filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition and had also applied to vacate the interim order were surreptitiously suppressed. Those are matters which were relevant while considering the contempt case against the stay order. This is all the more so because the 10th respondent in the writ petition, whatever be the merits of his claim, had placed COC.1864/08 Page numbers documentary evidence before the writ court in support of his claim that he has a due licence. Going by the permits, I find that whether they were sustainable or not, the 10th respondent in the writ petition had been holding out the documents from some time in July, 2008 and has a permit only until June, 2009. 6.I am sure that this contempt case was filed only to circumvent the proceedings in the writ petition where the 10th respondent therein had sought for the interim order being vacated. In the aforesaid circumstance, this contempt case is a clear case of abuse of the process of this Court and a calculated attempt to deflect the course of justice. The contempt case is only to be rejected. Notice was issued in this case to respondents 2 to 4, calling upon them to file affidavits. The 4th respondent has filed counter affidavit producing documents. The police officers were present before this Court on 9.1.2009. The petitioner is to be mulcted with exemplary costs in favour of respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner will, therefore, pay an COC.1864/08 Page numbers amount of Rs.25,000/- each to each among respondents 3 and 4 as costs of this contempt of court case. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.