V.C. Joseph @ Reji vs K.Mani
2021 Latest Caselaw 2396 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942

          Con.Case(C).No.1728 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 27458/2019

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27458/2019(F) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


PETITIONER:

               V.C. JOSEPH @ REJI, AGED 56 YEARS
               S/O. V.M.SYRIAC, VADAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
               KARUKACHAL VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM
               DISTRICT, PIN-686 540.

               BY ADV. SMT.M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)

RESPONDENTS:

      1        K.MANI, S/O. KUNJAN NADAR, MADATHOTTUVILA
               PUTHENVEEDU, PANAYAMPALA, KARUKACHAL P.O.,
               KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 540.

      2        AJAYAN, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
               PETITIONER, PRESENTLY WORKING AS SECRETARY,
               KARUKACHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARUKACHAL P.O.,
               CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 540.

               SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case(C).No.1728 OF 2020

                                      2


                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of January 2021

The petitioner alleges that even without proper licence,

the first respondent - K.Mani is still running a pig farm in his

property, though he was directed not to do so and that the

second respondent was directed to ensure this. The

petitioner, therefore, prays that necessary action under the

Contempt of Court Act be taken against the respondents.

2. In response to the submissions of the petitioner made

by Smt.M.Santhi, the learned counsel appearing for the

second respondent - Sri.Madhavankutty, submitted that an

affidavit has been filed on record by his client wherein the

following has been averred:

"The above contempt case is filed by the petitioners against the respondents for non compliance of the judgment dated 07.11.2019 in W.P.

(C). No. 27458/2019. It is respectfully submitted that, pursuant to the interim order dated 12.11.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the above contempt case, I personally visited the property of the 1st respondent herein on 28.11.2020. During my visit to the property owned by the 1st respondent in Ward No.7 of Karukachal Grama Panchayath, it was understood that he is not presently running any pig farm in his premises. But I could find meat waste of about 20 kilograms which were kept in his premises at Karukachal Grama panchayath in Ward No. 7. When I enquired with the 1st respondent regarding the same, I was told by him that the above quantity of waste meat collected from certain meat stalls in Karukachal town Con.Case(C).No.1728 OF 2020

and is intended to be taken to his pig farm situated in Vazhoor Grama panchayath. It is brought to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that the 1st respondent has not obtained any licence or authority to keep waste meat in his premises. It is further brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that, the 1 st respondent has not disclosed the source from where he obtained the above quantity of meat waste."

3. Sri.Madhavankutty submitted that his client has

acted diligently and sincerely with respect to the directions

in the judgment but that the actions of the first respondent

could not be controlled, because he has done so

surreptitiously and secretly. Sri.Madhavankutty, however,

submitted that, henceforth, a close watch on the property of

the first respondent will be kept by the second respondent, to

ensure that neither animals nor animal meat are brought or

stored there without proper licence.

4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is doubtless

that the actions of the first respondent appears to be in gross

contempt of the orders of this Court and that he has still not

chosen to appear before this Court in person or through

counsel. However, I propose not to take any further action at

this stage because Sri.Madhavankutty, as recorded above,

has assured this Court that the second respondent will

ensure that no violations will be henceforth allowed in the Con.Case(C).No.1728 OF 2020

property of the first respondent .

Recording the afore submissions of Sri.Madhavankutty,

I close this contempt case; however, cautioning the first

respondent that if any conduct from his side is brought to the

notice of this Court in future regarding violation of the

directions in the judgment, necessary action under the

Contempts of Court Act or such other provisions of law will

be initiated against him without reservation.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

Stu JUDGE Con.Case(C).No.1728 OF 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.11.2019 IN WPC NO.27458 OF 2019 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.

ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 29.5.2020 TO THE RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 29.5.2020.