IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 611 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23461/2007 Dated 07/09/2007 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. JIBI THOMAS @ GEORGE THOMAS, AGED 39, S/O.DAVIS THOMAS, GALLILA, PIPE LINE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN - 25. 2. DEEPA GEORGE, AGED 32, W/O.GEORGE THOMAS, GALLILA, PIPE LINE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN - 25. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.NAVEEN SHERRY LUKOSE RESPONDENT(S): CONTEMNORS/RESPONDENTS 2, 3 ------------------------------------------ 1. MRS.MINI ANTONY, W/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, MAIN OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 2. MR.K.S.SUBASH, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, EAST ZONE, COCHIN OFFICE, CORPORATION OF COCHIN. ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAATU FOR ADV.COMMSR. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ ........................................... CONT.CASE.NO. 611 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners have approached this court alleging that the respondents have disobeyed the direction of this court contained in Annexure A1 judgment which reads as follows. “It is declared that Ext.P5 notification has already lapsed and even if the Corporation is desirous of acquiring the properties in question, they will have to initiate proceedings de novo. In view of the above declaration, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to grant sanction of permit to the petitioner for construction of a building as applied for, notwithstanding Ext.P5 notification. It is however made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the Corporation acquiring the land for any genuine public purpose in which case the petitioner will be entitled for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act”. 2. Earlier, the contempt application was filed and the same was closed on the undertaking given by the standing counsel for the respondents that permit will be issued within two weeks. The said judgment reads as follows:- “The learned standing counsel Sri CONT.CASE 611/2008 2 S.Ramesh Babu submits that in response to the directions in my judgment Annexure-A1, permit will be issued to the petitioner within two weeks from today. I record the above submission and close this Contempt of Court case giving liberty to the petitioner to move again under this jurisdiction after a period of three weeks, if necessary”. 3. Even thereafter when the permit was not issued, the present application was filed. During the pendency of the proceedings, Cochin Corporation has issued the building permit, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A7 along with I.A.411 of 2008. It was issued on 4.7.2008. A few conditions were attached to that permit. One of them is that petitioners shall produce the permit for conversion of the land under Kerala Land Utilization Order. The petitioners felt that the said condition is imposed so that petitioners will be effectively prevented from making construction as per the building permit. According to them it is illegal. 4. But we notice that if the petitioners are aggrieved by any of the conditions imposed in the building permit issued, their remedy lies elsewhere. Pursuing the contempt application further, even after issuance of the permit, is not the proper CONT.CASE 611/2008 3 remedy to redress their grievance. Since the permit is issued, though belatedly, we think it is not expedient or necessary to proceed with the contempt matter. Accordingly this contempt case is closed, without prejudice to the contention of the petitioners against the conditions imposed and their right to challenge them in appropriate proceedings, if so advised. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE K SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk/-