Givi Jacob vs Vinu Kunjappan
2021 Latest Caselaw 4211 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                         PRESENT

       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942

               Con.Case(C).No.1781 OF 2018

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2083/2015(I) OF HIGH
                    COURT OF KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

           GIVI JACOB
           AGED 36 YEARS
           S/O LATE JACOB MANGALAM, MANGALAM HOUSE,
           SOUTH BAZAR, NELLIKUNNU P.O, THRISSUR

           BY ADV. G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

           VINU KUNJAPPAN
           (FATHERS NAME AND OTHER PERSONAL DETAILS NOT
           KNOWN), THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR MUNCIPAL
           CORPORATION , M O ROAD, THRISSUR 680001

           R1 BY SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR
           CORPORATION
           K.J. MANURAJ GP

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Contempt Case (C) No.1781 of 2018     ..2..




                 Contempt Case (C) No.1781 of 2018
                   -------------------------------------------


                                JUDGMENT

This proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act is

instituted alleging willful disobedience of the direction issued by this

Court in W.P.(C) No.2083 of 2015.

2. The petitioner was in occupation of a premises

owned by a temple on a tenancy arrangement. The premises

occupied by the petitioner and the adjoining premises were required

by the Thrissur Municipal Corporation for widening a road. When

steps were initiated by the Corporation for the said purpose, the

petitioner filed the writ petition seeking, among others, appropriate

orders directing the Corporation to rehabilitate him in appropriate

manner. The writ petition was disposed of directing that the

Corporation shall acquire the premises occupied by the petitioner

only by bilateral negotiations or in accordance with law and that till

the aforesaid process is completed, the petitioner shall not be

dispossessed. It is alleged by the petitioner that despite the

direction aforesaid, the building occupied by the petitioner has been Contempt Case (C) No.1781 of 2018 ..3..

demolished by the Corporation on 15.08.2018. It is asserted that

there was no negotiation or acquisition in accordance with law as

directed by this Court and the demolition of the building occupied by

the petitioner would therefore amount to civil contempt.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the

respondent, the Secretary of the Corporation stating, among others,

that the side wall of the premises occupied by the petitioner was

severely damaged owing to the downpour on 15.8.18; that the

vehicular traffic through the road abutting the said building had to

be blocked due to the threat caused by the dilapidated building and

that the Sub Inspector of Police of the concerned Police Station has

required the Corporation to demolish the structure to avert the

imminent danger, and the building was demolished in the said

circumstances by the Corporation invoking the power of the

Corporation under Section 411 of the Kerala Municipality Act. The

request made by the Sub Inspector of Police has also been produced

by the respondent. Similarly, a report obtained from the concerned

Assistant Engineer of the Corporation as to the condition of the

building before action was taken was also produced by the

respondent along with the counter affidavit. Contempt Case (C) No.1781 of 2018 ..4..

4. Section 411 of the Kerala Municipality Act

indicates that in the event of an imminent danger, the Corporation

is empowered to demolish a building which is posing danger to the

life and property of others. The learned counsel for the petitioner

argued that demolition of the building occupied by the petitioner

was a malicious act to overreach the directions issued by this Court

and therefore, the same would amount to an act of contempt. From

the materials on record, I am unable to accept the said contention,

for there is no reason for the Sub Inspector of Police to request the

Corporation to demolish the building, if the building was not in a

dangerous condition, that too, after blocking the vehicular traffic

through the road.

In the said view of the matter, the contempt of court

case is closed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take

recourse to other remedies.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE ds 04.02.2021 Contempt Case (C) No.1781 of 2018 ..5..

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE I A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.2083 OF 2015 DATED 17.7.2015 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

ANNEXURE II A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21.7.2018.

ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT FOR ANNEXURE -II,DATED 21.7.2018.

ANNEXURE IV A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 26.7.2018.

ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.8.2018 AND SUBSEQUENT DATES.