IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 419 of 2010(S) --------------------------------------------- JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.25655/2009 DATED 10/09/2009 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WP(C) NO. 25655/2009: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- T. ABDUL AZIZ, S/O.KUNJEEDU, AGED 38, THORAPPA HOUSE, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW, SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN WP(C) NO. 25655/2009: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SRI.C.R. MURALEEDHARAN, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER, AGE NOT KNOWN, MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, THE SECRETARY IN CHARGE, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.ABDUL MAJEED,SC,MALAPPURAM MUNCIPALITY THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Con.Case(C).No.419 of 2010-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010. Judgment The petitioner says that he has lands lying on two sides of a water course. He wanted a permit to put up a make shift temporary bridge across that water way. This was to aid him to appropriately utilise his two plots. He had made Ext.P5 application. By judgment dated 10th September, 2009 in WP(C).25655/2009, that application was directed to be considered. It appears that the Municipal Council had already decided that such permits need not be granted. Therefore, going by the counter affidavit and Ext.R1(a) placed therewith, after the aforesaid time, the Municipality issued a letter on 4.3.2010 to the Government seeking clarifications. If Ext.R1(a) is to be believed, a copy of that intimation was also given to the petitioner. Going by Ext.R1(a), it appears that COC419/10 -: 2 :- the Municipal Secretary will not be able to decide on the issue, having regard to the Municipal Council's decision and the fact that the Government is yet to speak on the matter referred to it as per the letter dated 4.3.2010. However, when this contempt of court case is filed, the Municipal Secretary has issued Ext.R1 (b) evidently to wriggle out from the contempt of court proceedings. He does not make reference in that decision to the petitioner's representation which was Ext.P5 in the writ petition. That does not by itself mean that the Municipal Secretary had ignored it. I say this because, Ext.R1(b) is issued essentially depending on the earlier decision of the Municipality. In the above circumstances, as of now, I do not find that there is any wilful negligence or neglect in obeying the directions, however that, the petitioner would be eligible to work out the remedies if the Government takes the matter following Ext.R1(a). COC419/10 -: 3 :- The learned counsel for the petitioner states that there are different other similar make shift temporary bridges in place across the water course in question, that too, without permission. That is also a matter that the petitioner may bring to the notice of the Government, if a final decision following Ext.R1(a) is yet to be taken by the Government. Without prejudice to that, this contempt of court case is closed leaving the petitioner with liberty to move afresh, if required at any point of time in the light of what is stated above. It will also be open to the petitioner to place a copy of Ext.P5 in the writ petition before the Government as a follow up of the contents of Ext.R1(a). THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/2807