IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1530 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24742/2007 Dated 07/10/2008 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- T.MUHAMMED HUSSIAN,44 YEARS, S/O. SIDIQUE, THE PRESENT PRESIDENT, ANDROTT TOWN PLANT ACTION COUNCIL, ANDROTT, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADEEP. BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ R.P.PAL, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 40, THE COLLECTOR-CUM-DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI. ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, CJ. & P.N.Ravindran, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1530 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. This Contempt Case is filed complaining that the respondent herein, who is the Collector-cum-Development Commissioner of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, has failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Annexure -1 judgment delivered on 07.10.2008 in W.P.(C) No.24742 of 2007. 2. The petitioner alleges that contrary to the undertaking given by the respondent and recorded by this Court in Annexure-1 judgment, steps have not been taken to evict encroachers from Government lands and also to regulate running of shops. In Annexure-1 judgment a Division Bench of this Court recorded the undertaking given by the learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration, that effective steps will be taken to evict encroachers from Government lands and also to regulate that the shops in the COC No.1530 of 2010 -:2:- Island will be conducted only by license holders. 3. The respondent has, after Annexure-1 judgment was delivered, passed Annexure-7 order on 25.08.2009. The said order discloses that the respondent has taken steps to evict encroachers from Government lands. The learned counsel for the respondent brought to our notice that Annexure -7 order is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.15538 of 2010 and that in view of the interim order passed therein, further steps could not be taken pursuant to Annexure-1 order. The learned counsel also submitted that, at present, there is no law governing the grant of licenses to shops and that in the absence of such a law, the Administration is not in a position to regulate the running of shops. 4. We have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. In view of the admitted fact that the respondent has passed Annexure-7 which is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.15538 of 2010 in this Court, we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot be proceeded against for not evicting the encroachers. As COC No.1530 of 2010 -:3:- regards the licensing of shops, in view of the fact that no law governs the licensing of such shops, the respondent can not be faulted for having failed to regulate the running of shops which are made mention of in the instant contempt case. We are therefore of the considered opinion that no further orders are called for in this Contempt Case. It is accordingly closed reserving liberty with the petitioner to defend Annexure-7 order in W.P.(C) No.15538 of 2010 wherein it is under challenge. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ttb