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 FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 421 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGEMENT IN WPC.34321/2009 AND WPC.33793/2009 Dated 08/01/2010 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- C.V. JOSE, AGED 65 YEARS, S/0. VAREED, C.J. PLY GLASS, C.J. TOWER, IKKANDA WARRIER ROAD, THRISSUR -1. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. ABHILASH, SECRETARY, THE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. P.L. RAFFI, ROOM NO. 14, C.J. TOWER, IKKANDAVARIAR ROAD, THRISSUR -1. R1 BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SIDHARTHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.D.G.VIPIN THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 421 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. This Contempt case arises from the common judgment dated 08.01.2010 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.34321 of 2009 and 33793 of 2009. 2. The basic dispute revolves around the issue with regard to the conduct of the shops bearing Nos.9/640/12,13 and 14 and that the main allegation was that the business was being conducted without getting proper licences from the local authority. The writ petitions were disposed of with the following directions: “(i) The Corporation shall reconsider Ext.P2 appeal with notice to the petitioner and other aggrieved persons including the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34321/2009 and pass a reasoned order as directed by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment in W.P.(C) No.32080/2007. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (ii) In the meanwhile, petitioner will be permitted to carry on only the licensed activities in building No.9/640(14) and shall not resort to any activity in building No.9/640/12, 13.” COC No. 421 of 2010 -:2:- 3. The petitioner in the Contempt Case contends that, despite the specific direction given, not to conduct any activity in building Nos.12 and 13; only scant regard was given to the same by the respondents, which made the petitioner to approach this Court to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act. Reliance is sought to be placed on a 'Commission Report', filed in the suit before the Civil Court, wherein some observations have been made by the Advocate Commissioner as to the nature of the operation. 4. Taking note of the materials on record, it was observed by the learned Single Judge in the reference order dated 05.08.2010 that, admittedly without licence, room No.12 was being used at least for storage purpose and prima facie, there was some contempt; which forms the subject matter of this case before us. Pursuant to the notice issued, the respondents have entered appearance and filed separate counter affidavits also producing copies of the relevant documents. COC No. 421 of 2010 -:3:- 5. The 1st respondent, the Secretary, Thrissur Municipal Corporation has stated that there is absolutely no merit or bona fides in the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Contempt Case; in so far as no such activity, as alleged, is being carried out in the concerned premises. It is asserted that, shop No.12 stands closed down. Shop No.13 has been surrendered by the 2nd respondent and pursuant to the application submitted by the concerned person for conducting a perfume business, necessary licence has already been issued and it does not form the subject matter of the present contempt case. With regard to shop No.12, it is stated that even from the report of the Advocate Commissioner, no business was noted as being conducted and the shop was lying closed, when the Advocate Commissioner visited the premises. It is also specifically pointed out in paragraph 3 of the said affidavit, that the Corporation had never received any complaint from the petitioner, that the 2nd respondent was doing business in the concerned shops after Annexure I judgment. COC No. 421 of 2010 -:4:- 6. The 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit referring to the sequence of events and submits that no such operations as alleged by the petitioner have been carried out, nor are intended to to be pursued contrary to the verdict passed by this Court. It is stated that, in connection with the business being conducted in shop No.14, some materials were of course stored in shop No.12 also. Subsequently, all such materials were shifted to shop No.14 and that nothing remains in shop No.12. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the reference order was passed on 05.08.2010 without any reference to the modification of the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge in the appeal preferred therefrom, before the Division Bench. A copy of the final verdict passed by the Division Bench has also been produced and marked as Annexure R2(a) [which is the same as Annexure R1(b)]. 7. While disposing the Writ Appeal, the Division Bench directed the Corporation to consider the application for licence to carry out business in shop No.12 and 13, if the COC No. 421 of 2010 -:5:- appellant therein filed fresh application, along with 'pollution clearance' from the Pollution Control Board. The Corporation was directed to dispose of the application within a period of 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It was observed that, in the meanwhile, the appellant should not carry out any activity in connection with 'manufacturing or mixing' in shop Nos.12 and 13 and in case of any violation, the Corporation was directed to take appropriate action. 8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for all the parties concerned, this Court finds that the reference made by the learned Single Judge was obviously without any reference to the verdict passed by the Division Bench on 07.06.2010, modifying the directions given by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions. The point to be looked into is, whether any activity in connection with manufacturing or mixing operation is being conducted in shop Nos.12 and 13. No such case has been made out. We find that no further steps are to be pursued in the contempt matter. Accordingly, the Contempt COC No. 421 of 2010 -:6:- Case is closed. However, this will not stand in the way of the petitioner in bringing up the violation, if any, to the extent it is beyond the directions already given as aforesaid. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb