IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1416 of 2010(S) ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.10222/2009 Dated 28/08/2009 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WPC ------------------------------------------ THE PUDUKKAD SAMAGRA VIKASANA SAMITHY REP.BY ITS SECRETARY THOMAS AINIKKAL, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 44, AINIKKAL, CHENGALOOR, THRISSUR-680312. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE WPC --------------------------------------------------- P.RAMANATHAN,FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNWON, PROJECT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, ARUMUGHAN COLONY, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD, KERALA BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.THOMAS ANTONY THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ Cont. Case (C) No. 1416 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging contumacious act on the part of the respondent stating that the undertaking given to this Court when the writ petition was disposed of as per the judgment dated 28.08.2009 has not been complied with. 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the proceedings reveal that the petitioner, who is a public interest litigant only wanted to have a 'fly over' or an 'under pass' at Pudukad. When the writ petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the second respondent in the writ petition to constitute a technical committee to conduct a study and submit a report; pursuant to which a committee was constituted by the National Highway Authority of India and the committee has filed a report. The second and third respondents in the writ petition undertook before this Court that they would implement the recommendations of the technical committee expeditiously and that necessary steps would be taken within no time. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the undertaking given by the respondent is still to be complied with; which in turn is sought to be Cont. Case (C) No.1416 of 2010 - 2 - pursued, contending that, it amounts to the offence of Contempt of Court. 4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent stating that there was many a circumstance which placed hurdles on the way of the respondent in completing the project as undertaken. It is stated that some interested persons of the locality had sought to shift the 'under pass' from the present station, which was not possible because of the feasibility point of view. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that some of them approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.8289 of 2010, which is stated to be pending. 5. The respondent is present in person today, before this Court. A counter affidavit has also been filed today, explaining the facts and figures in detail. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the execution of civil works (foundation, sub-structure, super structure) of the 'under pass' will take '18 months' in the normal course, from the time of handing over of the land required, if any unforeseen contingency does not hamper the works. This is subject to the condition that the State Government acquired and handed over the land. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent brought to our notice that the undertaking was given before this Court, when the matter was disposed of on 28.08.09, based on the facts and circumstances prevailed at that time and it was subsequently, that the things took a Cont. Case (C) No.1416 of 2010 - 3 - different turn, when the people of the locality raised serious protests against the acquisition of land for widening of the National Highway. It is pointed out that originally, the minimum width of the National Highway was fixed at 45 metres; which however was sought to be reduced to 30 metres at the instance of the State Government. Though a recommendation in this regard was sent to the Central Government, it was not acceptable to the Central Government and finally, the State Government decided to have the minimum width as 45 metres itself. It is also pointed out that, a proposal has been mooted by the State Government as 'R & R package' and that the same has been sanctioned by the Central Government. In the said circumstance, the State has issued a letter bearing No.10215/D3/08/PWD dated 09.11.2010 directing all the addresses including the concerned District Collector as well as the respondent herein, to keep all the land acquisition proceedings for widening of NH 17 and NH 47 in abeyance until further orders. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is not in a position to carry out the works in view of the above developments and that wherever the land has been handed over, the work has been completed within the time frame. There is no contumacious act on the part of the respondent in any manner; submits the learned counsel. Cont. Case (C) No.1416 of 2010 - 4 - 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the facts and figures as narrated in the statement and affidavit of the respondent have not been chosen to be rebutted by filing any reply affidavit or by other means/evidence. It is also conceded that no such circumstance was in existence when the writ petition was disposed of as per the judgment dated 28.08.2009. It is relevant to note that the State Government was not made a party to the writ petition. So also, the present act; particularly issuance of Ext.R1(c) by the State Government on 09.11.2010 has really placed the hurdles on the way of completion of the project. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any wilful negligence or disobedience on the part of the respondent in complying with the judgment. We find it difficult to accept the version put forth in the contempt case that the respondent should be proceeded against. We find no merit in the contempt case and it is dismissed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns