IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 97 of 2009(S) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8421/2007 DATED 26/03/2008 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- CHANDRIKA MENON, W/O.LATE DR.M.R.S.MENON AGED 63,T.C.13/2026,PAZHAYA ROAD,MEDICAL COLLEGE. PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS 1,2,4 & 5 --------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.K. JOSE, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SANJAY KAUL, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DILEEP KUMAR, S/O.N.BHARGAVAN, AGED 48 YEARS,SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, (TRIDA), JAYA MANSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-10. 4. SOMARAJAN,FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1, R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHADEVI R3 BY ADV. MR.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Cont. Case (C) No. 97 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 8th June, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this contempt case complaining violation of the directions in Ext. P1 judgment. She particularly referred to paragraph 30 of the judgment, which reads thus: “The admission made by the 4th respondent shows that even at a small stretch of road starting from the office to G.G. Hospital Junction, variations are made at 11 places. So, for the purpose of conducting the vigilance enquiry, it is necessary to conduct a re- survey of the entire stretch of road starting from Pattom Junction to Ulloor junction, to find out whether variations are made at other places. The team shall conduct enquiry and find out whether those variations were effected on account of money power or muscle power. I make it clear that such a re-survey is ordered only for the purpose of finding out whether any variations are made from original plan due to extraneous considerations.” She would submit that in Annexure IX petition filed by the State for extension of time to comply with the directions in the judgment, it is stated in paragraph 4 as follows: “As directed by the learned single judge in order to prepare the alignment for conducting resurvey assistance of the Kerala State Road Fund Board is sought from the office of the second petitioner herein. It is submitted that on 05.12.2008 the Kerala State Road Fund Board informed the second petitioner herein that the alignment has been prepared and the Central line has been fixed, for facilitating to conduct the resurvey in that stretch. It is submitted that being the entire stretch from Ulloor junction till Pattam junction is having high density of traffic, resurvey could not be completed though the same has been started immediately after the information from the Kerala State Road Fund Board regarding the fixation of Central line and the preparation of alignment. In view of the 5th direction in the W.P(C) notice has been issued to the writ petitioners on 6.12.2008 through special messenger and the same has been served to the petitioner on the same day. It is submitted that the time granted by this Hon'ble Court for complying with the second direction in the W.P(C) is expires on 13.12.2008. It is submitted that the resurvey of the entire stretch starting from Ulloor junction till Pattam junction can be completed only by further 2 months time from 14-12-2008. The Cont. Case (C.) No. 97/09. -: 2 :- delay occurred in this matter for complying the direction of this Hon'ble Court is for the reasons explained above and not for any deliberate latches. These petitioners tenders unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to this Hon'ble Court.” The petitioner would rely on the same to show that the respondents in violation of the judgment, is preparing a new alignment for conducting resurvey. 2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated in paragraph 5 as follows: “It is submitted that the resurvey work was conducted as per the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court in accordance with the original alignment prepared and approved by the Kerala Road Fund Board which is a statutory body. The survey works were conducted in the presence of the officers of the Vigilance and Anti corruption Bureau, District Collector, Deputy Collector (LA), Secretary, TRIDA, District Survey Superintendent and the officers of the Kerala Road Fund Board which was started on 09-12-2008. Central line of the proposed road which is having a width of 17.3 metres was already fixed as per the original alignment. By complying with the directions of this Hon'ble Court central line was marked at the site by Kerala Road Fund Board and peg marking was made on both sides of the road from the central line by the officials of Kerala Road Fund Board in the presence of the officers mentioned above. The petitioner was also given notice informing the date and time of the resurvey work and she was also present at the time of the survey work. But nobody has raised any complaint with regard to marking of the central line as per the original alignment prepared and approved by the Kerala Road Fund Board. Peg marking was completed on 05.01.2009 and after that survey sketch was prepared and it was submitted before the District Collector by the District Survey Superintendent. Annexures III and IV are true copies of the original alignment which were already marked as exhibits P16 and P18 in the writ petition and there is no violation at the time of resurvey work in this regard. The allegation that there is violation of Annexures III and IV original alignment which was deliberately and malafidely done with clear intention to take more land from the petitioner is absolutely false and hence denied. Annexure VI is the notice for joint inspection done earlier, before disposal of the writ petition in Cont. Case (C.) No. 97/09. -: 3 :- accordance with the original alignment. As per Annexure X report filed along with the affidavit filed before this Hon'ble Court by the District Survey Superintendent there is no violation of any of the directions contained in Annexure I judgment. No survey work was conducted violating the original alignment prepared and approved by the Kerala Road Fund Board. The contention that admittedly there is nothing even prima facie from Annexure I judgment to suggest that this Hon'ble Court had directed the respondents to fix central line and from there to peg mark to either side is not correct. The central line was marked and peg marking was done to comply with the direction No. ii of the judgment to conduct through resurvey from the entire stretch starting from Ulloor junction till Pattom junction. Without marking the central line which was already fixed it will not be proper to conduct a thorough resurvey as directed by this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, marking of the central line and from there to peg marking to either side is necessary. There is no new fixation of central line at the time or resurvey work. Earlier, even though the central line was fixed it was not marked at the site. Now it is marked in accordance with the original alignment prepared and approved by the Kerala Road Fund Board and on the basis of that the entire resurvey work was done.” 3. The petitioner had filed Annexure XII application seeking details, which were answered by Annexure XIII, wherein it is stated that the requested details would be furnished after receipt of the approved sketches from the District Survey Superintend. According to the petitioner, what has been requested for in Annexure XII is details regarding the original alignment and the property sought to be acquired as per the original alignment and therefore unless the respondents intend to change the alignment, they need not wait for the approved sketches after resurvey as directed in the judgment. 4. After hearing, I am of opinion that, insofar as the 1st respondent has categorically stated that the resurvey work was conducted in accordance with the original alignment prepared and approved by the Kerala Road Fund Board, there is nothing to show Cont. Case (C.) No. 97/09. -: 4 :- that any deviation has been made from the original alignment. In the above circumstances, the contempt case is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take up the matter appropriately, if it is found that after resurvey, the respondents have changed the original alignment. Sd/-S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/