Cont.case(c)2144 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
CON.CASE(C) NO. 2144 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28867/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
PETITIONER:
HARIKUMAR
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.LATE KESAVAN NAIR,
VADAKKINEDATH HOUSE, ELOOR EAST,
UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-683501.
BY ADVS.
P.B.PRADEEP
VISHNU PRADEEP
RESPONDENT:
VINODKUMAR.G
TAHADILDAR(LR), AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, TALUK OFFICE PARAVOOR THALUK, COURT
COMPLEX, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT,PIN-685613.
SRI JACOB E SIMON- GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont.case(c)2144 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this contempt case alleging non- compliance of the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment of this Court dated 15.02.2021 in W.P.(C)No.28867 of 2020, whereby that writ petition was disposed of. Paragraphs 6 to 8 of the judgment read thus;
"6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P11 application, if it is in order and pending consideration, with notice to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any, and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
7. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309] the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law.
8. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this judgment, the 3rd respondent shall take an appropriate decision in the matter, strictly in accordance with law, Cont.case(c)2144 OF 2021 3 taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point."
2. On 05.01.2022, when this contempt case came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that, on 14.09.2021 and 15.12.2021, the concerned officials inspected the property and thereafter, on 18.12.2021, the petitioner has been issued with a notice to clear the bushes in order to identify the boundary of his property.
3. On 25.05.2022, when this contempt case came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order;
"On 05.01.2022, when this contempt case came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that, on 18.12.2021, the petitioner was issued with a notice to clear the bushes in order to identify the boundary of his property. Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, after clearing the bushes, the said fact has already been intimated to the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made available for the perusal of this Court a notice dated 13.04.2022 in Form No.6 issued by the Taluk Survayor, North Paravur in which the date of survey is not mentioned.
The learned counsel for the petitioner to produce a copy of that notice along with an application to accept additional documents.
The learned Government Pleader would submit that, the respondent Tahsildar has already forwarded the files to the Taluk Surveyor, North Paravur, who will conduct Cont.case(c)2144 OF 2021 4 survey within two weeks. The said submission is recorded."
4. Today, when this case is taken up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that, in terms of the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment, the respondent has already passed order No.G3- 6953/18 dated 06.07.2022, a copy of which shall be communicated to the petitioner, forthwith.
Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Government Pleader, this contempt case is closed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order before the appropriate forum, in case he is feeling aggrieved by the same.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN
JUDGE
yd
Cont.case(c)2144 OF 2021 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WP(C)28867/2020 DATED:15-02-2021.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE