IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1072 of 2010(S) ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14426/2002 Dated 28/10/2005 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN OP. ------------------------------------ GRAMA SAKTHI JANAKEEYA SAMITHI,REP. BY ITS CONVENOR S.R.JOHN, SUNDARAMATHARA HOUSE,AYINI ROAD, MARADU. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT/6TH RESPONDENT IN O.P. --------------------------------------------- P.J.ANTONY(FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER),THE SECRETARY, MARADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ Cont. Case (C) No. 1072 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Complaining that the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.14426 of 2002 dated 28th October, 2005 is wilfully violated, the instant contempt case is filed. 2. The substance of the grievance in the writ petition was that there was indiscriminate encroachment on the banks of Ayinithodu (canal) and other connected canals resulting in flooding of the nearby localities and the petitioner complained that the respondents authorities of the State are not taking any action against the encroachers. 3. By the judgment dated 28th October, 2005 this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to make “concerted efforts for identifying the encroachments/encroachers” and “to take appropriate stern action for the removal of the Cont. Case (C) No. 1072 of 2010 2 encorachments at the earliest.” It may be mentioned here that none of the persons alleged to be the encraochers was a party to the above mentioned writ petition. 4. The present contempt case came to be filed in the month of August, 2010. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent that pursuant to the direction of this Court referred to above, a survey was sought to be conducted to identify the encroached areas and the encroachers. Eventually on the basis of the survey, the Grama Panchayat which was the 6th respondent in the writ petition, initiated eviction proceedings against the identified encroahers. Some of them were in fact evicted and some of them approached this Court by way of various writ petitions asserting various legal rights, the details of which may not be necessary for the present purpose. In one of them (W.P.(C) No.6699 of 2007) by the judgment dated 5th March, 2007 this Court directed the respondents to conduct a re-survey and then take action against the encroachers. This was followed by a series of Cont. Case (C) No. 1072 of 2010 3 writ petitions initiated by various persons, complete details of which may not be necessary for the purpose of this case. 5. In substance, the respondent submitted that the order of this Court dated 28.10.2005 could not be implemented in full though the respondent made very earnest effort to implement the same, in view of the various legal proceedings initiated at the behest of various persons who were not parties to the above mentioned writ petition. The respondent therefore submits that though there is delay in implementation of the orders of this Court, the delay can never be said to be either wilful or deliberate. 6. We have perused the counter affidavit and noted the details of the various steps taken by the respondent. We are convinced that there was no deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court, but the respondent was prevented from implementing the orders of this Court by various legal proceedings. 7. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to proceed further with the contempt case. The contempt case is Cont. Case (C) No. 1072 of 2010 4 closed. We only wish to add that this case perhaps is one of the classic instances of how giving a go-by to the established procedures of law would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigations. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns