IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1542 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.7098/1986 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.DAVIS, S/O.LATE K.P.KUNJUVAREED, KUNDUKULANGARA HOUSE, 17/1415, MARTHA BHAVAN ROAD, EAST FORT, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. G.SREEKUMARAN, (FATHER'S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN), SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004 2. MR.SUDHARMAN, (FATHER'S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN), ASST.EXE.ENGINEER, KSEB, THRIPRAYAR, THRISSUR. 3. ARUNAN I.T.(FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN), ASST.ENGINEER, T.C.SECTION, KSEB, ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR. 4. P.PRASANNA, (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN), EXE.ENGINEER, KSEB, KODUNGALORE,THRISSUR. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.S.ANIL THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- CO(C) No. 1542 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this Contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of the direction given by this Court as per judgment dated '21.12.1990' in OP 7098/1986. 2. When the matter came for consideration before this Court on 22.12.2009, taking note of the proceedings pursued in the meanwhile, the matter was ordered to be posted along with the judges papers in WP(C) 30847/2009 which hence are now before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits with specific reference to 'Ground 4' of the contempt petition, the Act of contempt was committed only in the last week of December, 2008 and that the petitioner came to know of it only on receipt of Annexure 5 letter dated 13.01.2009 and hence that the matter is well within time. 4. On going through the proceedings, it is revealed that the cause of action projected by the petitioner in OP 7098/1986 was with regard to the 'shifting of a transformer' and to pursue the said work without interfering with the right of the petitioner. After hearing both the sides, the said original petition was disposed of as per Annexure A2, CO(C) No.1542/2009 2 holding that the sustainability of the order passed by the Government interfering with the orders passed by the District Magistrate was left open; more so, in view of the finding given by the Government that the transformer could be shifted to the corner of the compound, without interfering with the rights of the petitioner therein. It was accordingly observed that there was no need to interfere with the directions given by the Government; however, making it clear that in doing the work consistent with the above direction, the rights of the petitioner shall not be interfered with and the same shall be carried out keeping in view of Ext.P1 therein. 5. Nearly two decades after passing Annexure A2 judgment, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) 30847/2009 alleging that the 'Board' had encroached into the property of the petitioner and were cutting down the trees; which hence was sought to be intercepted. Mainly placing reliance on the verdict passed by this Court in OP 7098/1986, which was produced as Ext.P3 therein; the averments and allegations raised by the petitioner were rebutted from the part of the respondents and after taking note of the rival submissions, it was observed by this Court in paragraph 2 of the verdict passed, that the proposal had nothing to do with the earlier instance which was the subject matter of Ext.P3 judgment therein. The new proposal was to draw an '11 KV line', since a CO(C) No.1542/2009 3 new 33 KV Sub Station had been constructed. The version put forth from the part of the Board that the line was proposed to be drawn only through the road adjacent to the petitioner's property and that, for the said purpose, the stay wires already planted in the petitioner's property for drawing the earlier lines had to be strengthened, was also recorded therein. The submission made from the part of respondent Board that in view of the objections raised by the petitioner, the matter had already been referred to the District Magistrate. Accordingly, the matter was closed as per judgment dated 13.11.2009, holding that the petitioner could raise all the contentions before the District Magistrate, who was directed to pass final orders only after considering the said objections as well. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/contemnor submits that, after passing the judgment in WP(C) 30847/2009, the petitioner filed review petition No.1246/2009 against the verdict dated 06.01.2010 passed by the learned Judge. After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for permission to withdraw the matter, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the judgment in appeal. Accordingly, permission was granted and the RP was dismissed as withdrawn, reserving the liberty as above. It is thereafter that the petitioner has now taken a 'U turn' and approached this Court by filing CO(C) No.1542/2009 4 the present case alleging contumacious act against the respondents/ contemnors in respect of the judgment dated 21.12.1990 passed by this Court in OP 7098/1986 two decades back. 7. In view of the sequence of events as narrated above, this Court finds it very difficult to accept the contentions of the petitioner. The cause of action now forming the subject matter of this petition has got nothing to do with the 'shifting of the transformer' dealt with in Annexure 2 verdict passed by this Court on 21.12.1990 in OP 7098/1986. This being the position, there is no need to proceed against the respondents/ contemnors in respect of the alleged offence under the Contempt of Court Act. No interference is called for and it is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc