Kerala High Court
Madhava Raja Club vs Reghuraman 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.1667 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 5302/2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5302/2018(K) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:
MADHAVA RAJA CLUB
ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD 678014,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIMAL VENU,
S/O. VENUGOPAL AGED 44 YEARS .
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
RESPONDENT:
REGHURAMAN
AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD 678 001.
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No.1667 OF 2020
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of January 2021
The petitioner has approached this Court on the singular
allegation that, in spite of directions in the judgment dated
10.10.2019 in W.P.(C) No.5302/2018, the respondent has not
issued any order.
2. I notice that when this matter was pending before this
Court, the respondent produced on record an order which he
claims to have issued in compliance of the directions; but
noticing that the said order had been issued without properly
hearing the petitioner, it was conceded by his learned counsel
- Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, that a fresh proceedings will be issued.
It is in such circumstances that this matter is listed today.
3. Today, Sri.Binoy Vasudevan has produced on record
an order of the respondent dated 19.01.2021, along with
memo dated 20.01.2021, in which it says that the respondent
had directed the Assistant Executive Engineer of the
Municipality, who is holding the charge of Municipal
Engineer, to conduct a site inspection, along with competent
Assistant Engineers, with notice to the petitioner; and that
based on such report, the directions in the judgment will be
Con.Case(C).No.1667 OF 2020
complied with, after hearing the petitioner also.
4. Sri.P.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that though the respondent has acted
egregiously in affront to the directions of this Court, his client
does not press this contempt case for the time being on
account of the afore submissions of Sri.Binoy Vasudevan. He,
however, prayed that the said Authority also be directed to
give his client a copy of the site inspection report, at least a
day before the hearing is scheduled.
Taking note of the afore submissions and recording the
contents of the order dated 19.01.2021, I dispose of this
contempt case; with a resultant direction to the respondent to
act strictly in terms of the said order, after affording
necessary opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, before
which, he shall also be favoured with a copy of the site
inspection report to be obtained, as mentioned therein.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
stu JUDGE
Con.Case(C).No.1667 OF 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
10.10.2019 IN WPC 5302 OF 2018.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
23.10.2019 ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. EJBR/BA-E4-872/10-
11/PW4 DATED 06.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIRMATION STATEMENT
DATED 18.12.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT DATED
23.12.2019.
ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. 61803
DATED 07.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. 61804
DATED 07.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. 61805
DATED 07.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
03.09.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE PETITIONER CLUB BEFORE THE RESPONDENT
ALONG WITH THE RECEIPTS.
