Kerala High Court
K.S.Muhammed Haneefa vs Ashraf on 7 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.2030 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 6330/2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6330/2020(M) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:
K.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFA
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. K.S. ALIKKUTTY, ADHIKARINTE VEEDU,
KUNJATHOOR P.O, MANJESHWARAM TALUK, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT-671 323
BY ADVS.
SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH
SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR
SMT.VANDANA MENON
SRI.VIMAL VIJAY
RESPONDENT:
ASHRAF
AGED 50 YEARS
(FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),
SECRETARY, MANJESHWAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
MANJESHWAR POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 323
R1 BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN
R1 BY ADV. SMT.LAKSHMI SREEDHAR
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont. Case (Civil) No.2030 of 2020
in
W.P(C) No.6330 of 2020
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
===========================
Cont. Case (Civil) No.2030 of 2020
in
W.P(C) No.6330 of 2020
===========================
Dated this the 07th day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
The aforecaptioned contempt of court case has been filed alleging
non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Annexure-D
judgment dated 03.03.2020 in W.P(C) No.6330/2020 filed by the
petitioner herein.
2. Heard Sri.Pushparajan Kodoth, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner in the COC/petitioner in the W.P(C) and Sri.Deepu
Thankan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Panchayath
Secretary in this COC/R3 in the W.P(C).
3. Sri.Pushparajan Kodoth, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has pointed out that though hearing in the matter has been
duly completed by the respondent-Panchayath Secretary as early as on
06.07.2020, as can be seen from Annexure-G. Thereafter, the
Cont. Case (Civil) No.2030 of 2020
in
W.P(C) No.6330 of 2020
respondent-Officer has not passed orders in compliance with the
directions issued by this Court in Annexure-D judgment dated
03.03.2020 in W.P(C) No.6330/2020. Sri.Deepu Thankan, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-Panchayath Secretary would
submit on the basis of instruction that it is true that hearing in the
matter has been duly completed and the site inspection was also
completed by the respondent-Panchayath Secretary with notice to both
sides and prima facie it has also been revealed that there are
irregularities in the construction in question, but it was found that the
affected party concerned, contesting respondent No.4 in the W.P(C), he
is abroad and his wife alone is in the house and on repeatedly
contacting her, it was given to understand that she will have to contact
her husband to get the factual details, etc. and further, Sri.Deepu
Thankan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that
the respondent-panchayath authorities will be advised to immediately
ensure that a last notice of hearing is served to the petitioner as well as
contesting respondent No.4 in the W.P(C) and if he is out of station,
then to serve it on his wife in his residence and after affording
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the other
Cont. Case (Civil) No.2030 of 2020
in
W.P(C) No.6330 of 2020
side, appropriate decision will be taken in the matter, without any
further delay. Further that, in case, the 4th respondent in the W.P(C) is
out of station, then it will be treated by the respondent-Panchayath
Secretary, that notice served on his wife in his residence, should be
treated as to the said affected party, as otherwise there is no other
feasible means of completing the procedural formality of hearing the
affected person. Further, Sri.Deepu Thankan, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-Panchayath Secretary would submit on
the basis of instructions that the Panchayath Secretary would take a
considered decision in the matter, after completing the abovesaid
procedural formalities, without any further delay, at any rate, within
one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
The abovesaid undertakings are hereby recorded. The respondent-
Panchayath Secretary will do the needful, as now undertaken, without
any further delay, within an outer time limit of one month from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner's counsel
will ensure that a certified copy of this judgment is sent by registered
speed post with acknowledgment due to the respondent-Panchayath
Secretary and the time limit of one month will be computed from the
Cont. Case (Civil) No.2030 of 2020
in
W.P(C) No.6330 of 2020
date of receipt of the said copy of the judgment by the respondent-
Panchayath Secretary.
With these observations and directions, the above Cont.Case
(Civil) will stand finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE
vgd
Cont. Case (Civil) No.2030 of 2020
in
W.P(C) No.6330 of 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF DISTRICT TOWN
PLANNING OFFICER, KASARAGOD DT.
27.2.2017.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE RESPONDENT
HEREIN DATED 15.3.2017.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY
PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT HEREIN ON
19.09.2017.
ANNEXURE D CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.C
NO.6330/2020 DT. 3.3.2020 ON THE FILE OF
THIS COURT.
ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER SENT BY
PETITIONER DT. 16.06.2020 TO THE
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED
16.06.2020 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO
PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT. 25.06.2020 ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER ON 6.7.2020 TO THE
RESPONDENT.
