IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 1446 of 2007(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO.18157/07 DTD. 24/09/2007 PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------------- SUKUMARAN NAIR, ANJALIL, THENNUR MULA VILAKOM, UPANIYOOR DESOM, VELLAYANI KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- 1. T.P.SANTHA(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SECRETARY, KALLIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SAROJINI, SAROJA BHAVAN, THANNUMULA VILAKOM, UPANIYOOR DESOM, VELLAYANI, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) FOR R1 ADV.SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN FOR R2 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt of Court Case No.1446 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The accusation against the respondents in this contempt of court case is that in violation of Annexure A interim order, the party respondent was permitted to carry out construction of her residential building. The construction permitted, it is alleged, violated the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Under Annexure A interim order, this court had directed the second respondent- Secretary of the Panchayat to ensure that the party respondent constructs the building only in accordance with the approved plan and permit and as per the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. 2. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the first respondent to whom only Annexure A was addressed can be said to be guilty of violating that order. Though the Annexure A interim order was confirmed by this court under Annexure B final judgment, it should be noticed that what was confirmed was only the direction which was addressed to the first CCC.No.1446/07 2 respondent in the contempt of court case. There was no restraining order against the party respondent from continuing with the constructions. Whatever that be, it will now be considered whether either of the respondents are guilty of having dis-obeyed Annexure A or B. 3. The secretary of the Panchayat has filed a detailed counter affidavit in support of I.A.No. 39/08. Along with that affidavit, Annexure R1(a) and R1(b) are produced. Annexure R1 (b) is the order passed by the secretary of the first respondent in compliance with the directions in Annexure A. In other words, Annexure R1(b) is passed on Ext.P1 referred to in Annexure B. Annexure R1(a) is the copy of the letter which was submitted by the party respondent before the first respondent. That letter will show that pursuant to Annexure A, an inspection of the premises was conducted by the first respondent and that on noticing that two windows and a sun shade were fixed or constructed in violation of the Municipality Building Rules, instructions for removal of those windows and sun shade was given to the party respondent and that the party respondent complied with those instructions. 4. Sri.K.P.Rajeevan, learned counsel for the party respondent would submit that after the passing of Annexure A CCC.No.1446/07 3 interim order, though the same did not restrain the party respondent from continuing with the construction, no further constructions were made. There is sufficient indication in Ext.P3 Commission report that the two windows which the first respondent directed the party respondent to remove had already been fixed, when the Commissioner visited the property or preparing Ext.P3 report. The materials placed on record are not sufficient to hold that a prima facie case is made out for initiating any action against either the respondents for contempt. As far as the first respondent - Secretary of the Panchayat is concerned, it is transparently clear that he has obeyed Annexure A and has gone into the extent of directing the party respondent to remove two windows found to be fixed in violation of the Building Rules, notwithstanding the fact that those two windows had already been fixed much prior to the institution of the writ petition or atleast at the time when the Commissioner visited the property, I do not find any reason for initiating any action against either the respondents for contempt. Contempt of Court Case will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE. SV. CCC.No.1446/07 4