IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 855 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.2434/2008 IN WPC.35642/2007 Dated 04/03/2008 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ LEEVAN JOSE, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH JOSEPH, MURIKUTHARA HOUSE, ERAMALLOOR PO., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY SRI. JEEVAN JOSE(PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENT: 3RD RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ P.B.ASOK KUMAR, 51 YEARS, S/O.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN, SECRETARY, EZHUPUNNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ERAMALLOOR PO., ALAPPUZHA BY ADV.MR.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Case ( C ) No.855 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 1st July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner in I.A.No.2434/08 (the 4th respondent in the Writ Petition) has filed this Contempt Case alleging that Annexure A1 order passed by this court in I.A.No.2434/08 in W.P.C.No.35642/07 has been violated. The following were the specific directions issued to the Secretary of the Panchayat under Annexure A1: i) The Secretary of the Panchayat is directed to conduct immediate local inspection of the premises of the commercial building, which is subject matter of the order passed by the Ombudsman. The local inspection will be conducted with notice to the petitioner in the Writ Petition, Sri.Jeevan Jose, the fourth respondent and his father, the third respondent in the writ petition. ii) If the inspection reveals that the claim of Sri.Jeevan Jose that a separate residential building having four rooms (two rooms in upstairs and two rooms in down stairs) has been constructed behind the commercial building which is subject matter of the Ombudsman's order, the Panchayat will assign door number to that residential building since that construction cannot obviously violate Section 220 (b).” COC No.855/08 - 2 - 2. The Secretary of the Panchayat has filed a detailed statement through which it is claimed that all the directions in Annexure A1 order have been faithfully complied with by the Panchayat. It is claimed that inspection with notice to the petitioner in the Writ Petition as directed in Annexure A1 was conducted, but the inspection did not reveal the existence of any separate two storied residential building behind the commercial building which is the subject matter of the Ombudsman's order. What was noticed was that additional constructions have been made to the commercial building itself. It is submitted that in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition relating to the Ombudsman's order, it is not possible to accede the petitioner's request to assign door numbers to the portions (newly added) to the existing commercial building. 2. Heard Mr.Jeevan Jose, party in person and Mr.P.N.Purushothama Kaimal, counsel for the Panchayat. 3. The petitioner would agree before me that it is not a residential building separated from the commercial building which is the subject matter of the Ombudsman's order which has been put up by him. He agreed that the constructions made by him are additions to the existing commercial building. He claimed that these additions COC No.855/08 - 3 - are not new additions but they have been in existence even when the Ombudsman passed the order. 4. The question which arises in this Contempt Case is whether it can be found even prima facie that the Secretary of the Panchayat is guilty of violating Annexure A1 order. That question, in my opinion, can be answered only in the negative. The Contempt Case will stand dismissed. However, the right and remedy of the petitioner to impugn Annexure A3 in separate proceedings are not foreclosed. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE