IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 835 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.2277/2008 Dated 18/01/2008 .................... PETITIONER ------------------ N. GEETHARANI, W/O. K.M. KARUNAKARAN, ROSE COTTAGE, PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- MR. JOHNSON K. GEORGE, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- C.O.C. NO. 835 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June , 2008 JUDGMENT The accusation against the respondent, the Secretary of the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, is that in open violation of annexed interim order, the respondent is attempting to widen the road, which passes on the north eastern side of the petitioner's property, and has encroached into the petitioner's property on 17.4.2008, 4.5.2008 and again on 13.5.2008 by putting soil and granite metal over the foundation of the proposed compound wall of the petitioner. 2. When this Contempt of Court Case came up for a admission, Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel, took notice for the Corporation. Sri.Manoj Kumar submitted that all the accusations are without any basis. According to the learned counsel, the Corporation does not intend to widen the road at all and has absolutely no intention of encroaching into anybody's property and much less into the property of the petitioner. The counsel further submitted that a detailed statement has been filed in the writ petition and sought leave C.O.C.No.835/2008 2 to rely on that statement as the respondent defends to the Contempt of Court Case. Leave was given and accordingly, the statement filed in the writ petition was perused. Inter alia, it is stated therein as follows; “ The Corporation has taken steps for metalling and tarring the above road on public request and the Contractor has already started the work. It is submitted that at the time when the estimate was taken for the work more width was shown for the road since the boundaries were not clear. 3. But later on proper verification and measurement it is found that the road has 3.10 metre width on the Northern side of Rose Cottage and 3.40 metres on the eastern side of Rose Cottage. It is submitted that the owners of the adjacent properties has agreed to the Corporation to surrender the necessary extend of land for the curvature at the corner near the Rose Cottage. When the work is carried out proper attention will C.O.C.No.835/2008 3 be made not to trespass into the property of the petitioner. The allegation contained in the above writ petition that the Corporation is attempting to encroach into the petitioners property and is attempting to cut and remove the valuable trees standing in the property is absolutely baseless, false and unfounded. It is submitted that the Corporation has absolutely no intention to encroach into the petitioner's property. “ 3. Sri.Manoj Kumar submitted that the Corporation has obeyed and will continue to obey the order dated 18.1.2008 passed by this court. The Corporation will not widen the road which has got the present width 3.10 metres on the northern side of Rose Cottage and 3.40 metres on the eastern side of Rose Cottage. The Corporation will not trespass into any portion of the petitioner's property. The Corporation will do only what is permitted under the interim order. 4. Taking exception to the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel, Sri. Biju Balakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner would place before me two photographs. One of the photographs shows the picture of the petitioner's house Rose Cottage and the C.O.C.No.835/2008 4 foundation of the compound wall of the petitioner presently concealed by sand heaped over the same. The other photographs shows the picture of the property of the petitioner's neighbour with whom the petitioner has on going civil litigations. Sri.Biju Balakrishnan alleged that it is to promote the interest of that neighbour, that the Corporation authorities are trying to widen the road at the cost of the petitioner. Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar in the light of the pleadings including the statement filed on behalf of the Corporation in the writ petition, I am of the view that it is too early to initiate any action against the respondent for contempt. The averments in the statement filed by the Corporation in the writ petition are accepted as undertakings given by the respondent to this court and the Contempt of Court Case is disposed of directing the respondent to honour those undertakings. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk