IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1576 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.K.ANILKUMAR, AGED 38, S/O.KUMARAN, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, CHIYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR). RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SRI.DEVARAJAN, SECRETARY,THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY S.C. SRI..B.MOHANDAS THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ C.O.C. NO.1576/2008 IN W.P.(C)No.20169/2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The accusation of the petitioner against the respondent is that the directions in Annexure I judgment of this court have been willfully disobeyed by the respondent. Denying the accusation, the respondent has filed an affidavit and at paragraph 5 of the affidavit, it is claimed as follows: “5. A copy of the judgment was received by this respondent on 17/10/2007. Immediately after receiving the copy of the judgment, this respondent had taken necessary steps to implement the order. This respondent had authorized the Corporation's Town Planning Surveyor to mark the Puramboke land at Chiyyaram Village in Sy.No.25/7 (in the Court Order the Sy.No. shown was 22/7) with the help C.O.C..No.1576/2008 2 of revenue Surveyors. Further, this respondent has also written a letter on 28/1/2008 to the Taluk Surveyor to demarcate the puramboke land. Again a reminder letter to the Taluk Surveyor was sent on 17/4/2008 in form 10 application with necessary fees to demarcate the land for implementing the Court order. Again on 16/7/2008 also another reminder was sent. Meanwhile the 3rd respondent has filed a suit in the Thrissur Munsiff Court on 22/2/2008 seeking a direction against eviction vide the High Court order. In the High Court order itself it is made clear that the judgment will not stand in the way of the 3rd respondent seeking redressal of his grievances through a competent Civil Court or by having recourse to any available statutory procedure.” 2. Elsewhere in the affidavit, the respondent has sought for extension of time for implementation of direction in Annexure 1 till the disposal of O.S. 504/2004 pending before the Munsiff C.O.C..No.1576/2008 3 Court, Thrissur. 3. Heard Sri.G.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.B.Mohandas, learned standing counsel for the Thrissur Corporation. Having considered the pleadings and the submissions addressed at the Bar, I am fairly convinced that there has been negligence on the part of the Corporation in promptly implementing the directions in Annexure I judgment. At the same time, I am not inclined to initiate action for contempt against the respondent. Considering the situation that the respondent is the executive functionary of a local authority. I close this Contempt of Court case issuing the following directions; i). The respondent shall complete the proceedings initiated in compliance of the directions in Annexure I judgment i.e. proceedings for demolishing objectionable building and evicting the third respondent in the writ petition from the premises at the earliest and at any rate within two months of receiving a copy of this judgment. ii). Pendency of O.S. No.504/2008 will be ignored by the C.O.C..No.1576/2008 4 respondent so long as the Munsiff Court, Thrissur does not issue any order restraining the respondent from continuing with the proceedings. The petitioner is permitted to approach this court again under the same jurisdiction, if the respondent does not implement directions in Annexure I within a period of three months. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk