Joe Thattil vs V. R. Mallika
2021 Latest Caselaw 16675 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                       PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
    WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
                        CON.CASE(C) NO. 1034 OF 2020
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.7007/2020 DATED 16.03.2020 OF
                              HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

             JOE THATTIL
             AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY THATTIL,
             THATTIL HOUSE, 8TH CROSS, DIVINE NAGAR,
             SOUTH CHITTOOR P. O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
             KOCHI - 682 017.
             BY ADVS.
             P.K.SOYUZ
             SRI.E.V.BABYCHAN


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2:

    1        V. R. MALLIKA
             AGED 55 (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),
             SECRETARY, CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
             SOUTH CHITTOOR P. O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 027.
 ADDL. R2 THE CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
          CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
          SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 027.

             ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22/10/2020 IN
             IA.3/2020 IN COC.1034/2020.
             BY ADVS.
             DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SC, KHRWS
             SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH)
             SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
             SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
             SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
             SRI.SABU PULLAN
             SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN

     THIS    CONTEMPT    OF    COURT    CASE     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con. Case (C) No.1034/2020              2




                   ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
             -----------------------------------------------------
           Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.1034 of 2020
      [arising out of judgment dated 16.03.2020 in W.P.(C) No.7007/2020]
                 --------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 11th day of August, 2021


                              JUDGMENT

In the instant case, the directions issued by this Court in

Anx.1 judgment dated 16.03.2020 in W.P.(C) No.7007/2020 have

been subsequently complied with by the respondent Panchayat

Secretary, after the dismissal of the writ appeal filed in that

regard.

2. In the averments in one of the affidavits filed by the

respondent officer, it was stated that the writ appeal was filed with

due permission of the Panchayat Committee, etc.

3. However, the President of the Panchayat has filed an

affidavit that no such permission whatsoever was obtained by the

respondent officer either from the Panchayat President or the

Panchayat Committee for the filing of the writ appeal and that the

writ appeal has been filed unilaterally by the said officer.

Subsequently, the respondent has filed an affidavit stating that the

writ appeal was filed without permission from the Panchayat

Committee, but anticipating sanction from the Panchayat

Committee.

4. In the light of these aspects the case was kept pending

to enable this Court to decide as to whether the initial averments

made by the respondent officer in her affidavit are false and

whether the said averments have been made knowing fully well

that it is false and also consequently to decide as to whether any

proceedings under Sec.340 of the Cr.P.C. is to be taken. This

Court had also appointed an Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in

those matters. The case was thus kept pending not on account of

the issue regarding compliance or non-compliance of the

directions of the judgment in the W.P.(C) but to decide the afore

aspects.

5. When the case had come up for consideration in the

previous occasion, Sri.Sabu Pullan, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent officer has sought an adjournment from this Court

to get instructions from his party as to whether she could pay costs

in the matter and the case could be closed.

6. Today when the matter has been taken up for

consideration, Sri.Sabu Pullan, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent officer would submit on the basis of instructions of his

party that the respondent officer will pay cost of Rs.15,000/-

(Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to the High Court Legal Service

Committee and that this Court may close the matter.

7. This Court had queried with the learned Advocates

appearing for all the other parties as to whether the said course of

action now suggested by the counsel for the respondent officer

could be accepted. None of the learned Advocates appearing for

all the other parties concerned have any serious objection in the

said course of action.

8. The abovesaid undertaking made by the respondent

officer is recorded. Accordingly it is ordered that the respondent

shall pay cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to

the High Court Legal Service Committee, within one month and

shall produce receipt evidencing payment of the said cost amount,

immediately thereafter and the original of the said receipt shall be

produced by the Registry.

9. In the light of these aspects, this Court is of the view

that the case need not be kept pending.

With these observations and directions the above petition

will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Skk//12082021

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1034/2020

PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.

(C) NO.7007 OF 2020 DATED 16.03.2020.