Kerala High Court
Brijitha vs Reeja M.S on 20 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.1681 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 32815/2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32815/2019(B) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
BRIJITHA
AGED 33 YEARS
W/O. SREEJITH, RESIDING AT SAKUNTHALA, OZHUVUPURA,
PALLASSENA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
RESPONDENTS/6TH RESPONDENT & 7TH RESPONDENT:
1 REEJA M.S
W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN CONVENOR, THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING
COMMITTEE, (CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF
PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008), (THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PALLASSENA,
CHITTUR PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678505.
2 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
1ST FLOOR, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, VIKAS BHAVAN,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENETE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
BY SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL - SR.GP
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2021, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).1811/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).Nos.1681 & 1811 OF 2020
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.1811 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 32822/2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32822/2019(C) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
SREEJITH
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT 'SAKUNTHALA', OZHUVUPARA,
PALLASSENA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
RESPONDENTS/6TH RESPONDENT & 7TH RESPONDENT:
1 REEJA M.S.
W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, CONVENOR, THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITOING
COMMITTEE, (CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF
PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT 2008) THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, PALLASSENA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT-678 505
2 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
1ST FLOOR, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, VIKAS BHAVAN,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY SCIENTIST S.JANE
MITHRA
SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL - SR.GP
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2021, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).1681/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).Nos.1681 & 1811 OF 2020
3
JUDGMENT
These Contempt of Court Cases have been filed by the
siblings on the allegation that the judgment of this Court
dated 03.12.2019 has not been complied with; and thus
seeking that the respondents be proceeded against under the
provisions of Contempt of Court Act.
2. However, pending this lis, it appears that the
respondents have issued orders rejecting the claims of the
petitioners and their learned counsel, Sri.Praveen Hariharan,
submits that he intends to challenge those before this Court
appropriately. He, however, submitted that the assertion of
the respondents, that the aforesaid orders were issued to his
clients on 28.01.2020, is inaccurate and in fact, wrong, since
the Despatch-cum-Stamp Account Register dated
02.03.2002, produced by the respondents, would show that
there are several corrections therein, so as to make it appear
that despatch of these orders were made on 28.01.2020.
3. Noticing the afore allegations of Sri.Praveen
Hariharan, I had passed the following order on 09.12.2020 in
these cases.
Con.Case(C).Nos.1681 & 1811 OF 2020
"Even though the learned
Senior Government Pleader,
Shri.Mathew Vadakkel submits that
orders in Contempt Case Nos.1811 of
2020 and 1681 of 2020 has already
been issued on 28/01/2020 and that
the orders in Contempt Case No.1770
of 2020 will be issued within a short
period, the extract of the Postal
Despatch Register, produced along
with a memo of the learned Senior
Government Pleader dated
27/11/2020, appear to have several
corrections.
This is vital to these cases
because the petitioners assert that
these orders have never been served
on them.
I am, therefore, of the firm view
that the respondent must file an
affidavit explaining the corrections in
the Despatch Cum Stamp Account
Register of the date 02/03/2020,
since if the allegations of the
petitioners are correct, then the
corrections in the Despatch Register
becomes a very serious issue. "
4. In obedience to the afore directions, the
respondent has sworn to an affidavit dated 11.01.2021
wherein, the following have been stated.
"The alleged Despatch cum
Stamp Account Register is being
maintained in the Krishi Bhavan
Office, Pallassana truly, correctly,
and regularly. The above register is
handled by the Agricultural
Assistants 1) Mrs. Aruna Devi V, 2)
Mrs.Jasmin M. and 3)
Mr.Prathapkumar S. On 2.3.2020,
the above said register was handled
by Agricultural Assistant Mrs.Aruna
Con.Case(C).Nos.1681 & 1811 OF 2020
Devi. V. There is no correction on
2.3.2020 in the above said register.
The corrections seen in the above
register happened only due to an
inadvertent mistake committed by
the above said Agricultural
Assistants due to an oversight. There
is no willful correction, omission or
latches to defeat the interest of
anyone in this regard. The correction
is made only in the value of stamp,
calculated and entered in the above
said register. Other entries in the
above said register such as date,
address, etc has not been corrected.
It is a mistake committed by the
Agricultural Assistants while
entering the value of stamp in the
said register which is only corrected.
The entries shown in the abstract in
the relevant page is written by
Agricultural Assistants 1) Mrs.Aruna
Devi, 2) Mrs.Jasmin M 3)
Mr.Prathpkumar S."
5. When I examine the averments extracted above, I
must certainly record that this Court is not fully satisfied
with the explanation and that much can be read between the
lines.
6. However, since these issues are not relevant to
the disputes at hand, I deem it appropriate not to say
anything further.
In the afore circumstances, I close these Contempt of
Court Cases leaving full liberty to the petitioners to
Con.Case(C).Nos.1681 & 1811 OF 2020
challenge the orders now issued by the respondents and
leave open their contention that these orders were received
by them much later than 28.01.2020.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
rp JUDGE
Con.Case(C).Nos.1681 & 1811 OF 2020
APPENDIX OF Con.Case(C) 1681/2020
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
05.04.2018 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER
BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLASSENA VILLAGE.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22.09.2018
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CONVENOR,
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE.
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN WP(C) NO.
34546/2018 DATED 24.10.2018.
ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2019 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN WP(C) NO.
32815/2019 DATED 03.12.2019.
ANNEXURE VI TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.12.2019
SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE VII TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED
24.12.2019 EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE - V
JUDGMENT.
Con.Case(C).Nos.1681 & 1811 OF 2020
APPENDIX OF Con.Case(C) 1811/2020
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22.09.2018
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CONVENOR
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
ANNEXURE-II TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P.C
NO.34781/2018 DATED 25.10.2019
ANNEXURE-III TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2019 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE-IV TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN WPC
NO.32822/2019 DATED 03.12.2019
ANNEXURE-V TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.12.2019
SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE
RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE-VI TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED
24.12.2019 EVIDNEICNG RECEIPT OF ANNEUXRE -IV
JUDGMENT
