Against The Judgment In Wp(C) ... vs By Adv. Sri.Anil Kumar ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5518 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

     TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942

         Con.Case(C).No.2134 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 40269/2016

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 40269/2016(G) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC NO.40269/2016

             K.K.LAKSHMI
             AGED 63 YEARS
             CHANTHIRUTHY HOUSE,KADAMBAZHIPURAM.P.O,
             PALAKKAD.

             BY ADV. SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN

RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC 40269/2016

             DR.P.SURESH BABU IAS
             AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
             PETITIONER,DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
             COLLECTORATE,PALAKKAD-678001.

             SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE,SR.GP

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                               2

Con.Case(C).No.2134 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 40269/2016




                                    JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16th day of February 2021

This contempt petition is filed complaining

that the directives contained in the judgment in

W.P.(C)No.40269/2016 dated 05.04.2019 are not

complied with.

2. The direction issued by this Court in the

judgment is as follows:-

"5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to convene a meeting of the aforesaid bodies within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and identify whether Ext.P6 order can be implemented in its letter and spirit. If the District Collector finds that the order cannot be implemented the Collector will, be at liberty to refer the matter to the State Government and the State Government is directed if any reference is made, to attain finality to the same at the earliest possible, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of any reference from the District Collector."

3. Today when the matter was taken up, learned

Government Pleader has produced a communication

addressed by the District Collector Palakkad to the

Advocate General, Ernakulam, from where I could

Con.Case(C).No.2134 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 40269/2016

gather that, as per the direction issued by this

Court to solve the problem of water logging in the

paddy field as complained by the petitioner two

culverts were constructed instead of two pipes, but

due to Covid -19 pandemic the work could not be

completed before 31st March, 2020. However, the work

was completed and there was no flooding in the area

in question during the last monsoon and also the

water was flowing properly. It is also stated that

the block in the pipes and the culverts were also

cleaned.

4. Therefore according to the learned Senior

Government Pleader, the directions issued by this

Court in the judgment was complied with, however,

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that,

the directions issued by this Court in the judgment

was not carried out by the District Collector or

other authorities in the letter and spirit of the

direction contained in the judgment. It is also

pointed out that, as per the order passed in order

Con.Case(C).No.2134 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 40269/2016

to rectify the issue of flooding in the area three

culverts were in contemplation, however, even going

by the instructions given by the District Collector

only two culverts were constructed.

5. I have considered the rival submissions

made across the Bar. In my considered opinion, when

the District Collector has forwarded a

communication to the Advocate General stating that,

the flooding that was occurring in the area in

question could be rectified by constructing two

culverts, the insistence for construction of three

culverts is not a viable proposition and it was

never directed by this Court also. It was

specifically made clear in the judgment that, if

the District Collector finds that Ext.P6 order,

which was the foundation of the writ petition, if

can be implemented it is to be implemented in its

letter and spirit. Therefore, when now the District

Collector has addressed the office of the Advocate

General that, the flooding of water could be

Con.Case(C).No.2134 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 40269/2016

rectified by construction of two culverts, this

Court is not expected to sit over such a factual

circumstance in order to identify whether the

respondents have committed contempt of the judgment

of this Court. If the petitioner is still

aggrieved, petitioner is to take up the matter

before the appropriate forum in order to ventilate

the grievances, that have occurred consequent to

the construction carried out by the respondents in

accordance with the directions contained in the

judgment.

Since the petitioner has submitted that, still

the flooding of water is not rectified, I think it

is only appropriate that the contempt case can be

closed, observing appropriately. Therefore, the

contempt petition is closed, recording the above

aspects and also observing that,the District

Collector shall oversee as to whether any flooding

occurs in the area due to non-construction of the

3rd culvert in Ext.P6 order referred to in the

Con.Case(C).No.2134 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 40269/2016

judgment in question and if still the flooding is

occurring in that area, it is for the District

Collector to take appropriate action to rectify the

same.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE hmh

Con.Case(C).No.2134 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 40269/2016

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5/4/2019 IN W.P(C)NO.40269/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-

11-2019 IN CONT.CASE NO.1764/2019 IN W.P.(C)NO.40269/2016 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL