IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 59 of 2011(S) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32862/2010 Dated 28/10/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): WRIT PETITIONER ------------------------------ K.E.MOIDU, S/O.AHAMMED, AGED 47 YEARS, HILLTOP BUNGALOW, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.ABOOBACKER HAJI, DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), HILLTOP PUBLIC SCHOOL, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE-4. 2. S.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS, SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE-673 001. ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU FOR R1 SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION FOR R-2 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON 24/03/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- Contempt Case (C).No.59 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th March, 2011 JUDGMENT This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents herein have wilfully disobeyed Annexure 1 interim order passed by this Court on 28.10.2010 in W.P(C)No.32862 of 2010. The petitioner alleges that though by the said order this Court had directed that the status quo as on 28.10.2010 shall be maintained and the said order was in force till the writ petition was disposed of, the first respondent put up a structure in violation of that order. It is further alleged that though thereupon the Secretary of Kozhikode Corporation had issued Annexure 3 memo dated 23.11.2010 calling upon the first respondent to stop the construction, the first respondent proceeded with the construction in violation of the order of this Court. 2. When this contempt case came up for hearing on 20.1.2011, I directed the Secretary, Kozhikode Corporation to produce through the learned standing counsel a copy of the report prepared after inspection of the first respondent's premises on Contempt Case (C).No.59 of 2011 -:2:- 12.11.2010, which is referred to in Annexure A3. A copy thereof was accordingly produced by the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kozhikode Corporation along with the memo dated 27.1.2011. The said report discloses that though on 15.11.2009, on being informed over telephone that certain works are in progress in the school, the Office Superintendent went over to the school to inspect the construction, he was not permitted to enter the premises. It is however stated that the Superintendent found that steel roofing sheets were being fixed on a temporary structure which was earlier constructed using steel stresses. The learned standing counsel also submitted that Annexure 3 memo was thereupon issued to the first respondent on 23.11.2010. 3. Sri.K.Jaju Babu, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted with reference to the counter affidavit dated 19.1.2011 that the temporary structure which is the subject matter of Annexure 3 memo was put up in the place of an old building which was demolished before the writ petition was filed and that the said temporary structure was also put up before the interim order was passed. It is stated that pursuant to the interim order passed on 28.10.2010, the construction of the temporary shed was also stopped, that during the last week of October, 2010 Contempt Case (C).No.59 of 2011 -:3:- the open roof on one side of the temporary shed was covered with sheets to prevent rain water from flowing into the shed and that steel roofing sheets were fixed on the other side after the writ petition was disposed of on 6.12.2010. The first respondent proceeds to state that he has not wilfully disobeyed the directions issued by this Court in Annexure 1 order or in the judgment. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on both sides. It is evident from the materials presently on record that even before Annexure 1 interim order was passed, the first respondent had put up a temporary shed. It was only on 28.10.2010 that this Court directed that the status quo shall be maintained. The said order was in force till 6.12.2010. Annexure 2 series of photographs produced by the petitioner would only show that in the last week of December 2010 a temporary shed was in existence. The writ petition itself was disposed of by judgment delivered on 6.12.2010. The fact that steps had been taken by the first respondent to put up a temporary shed is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in the writ petition. The report of inspection produced by the learned standing counsel for the Kozhikode Corporation also discloses that what was being Contempt Case (C).No.59 of 2011 -:4:- done on 15.11.2009 was only the laying of roofing sheets on a structure which had been put up earlier. The first respondent has explained in the counter affidavit filed by him that all that he had done was to fix roofing sheets on a temporary shed which was put up earlier. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any ground to initiate proceedings against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- Cont. Case (C).No.59 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 24th March, 2011