Kerala High Court
Joby M.C vs Vinu C. Kunjappan on 20 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1943
CON.CASE (C) NO. 824 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 577/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM DATED 5.11.2020
PETITIONERS:
1 JOBY M.C., AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. CHAKKUNNY, RESIDING AT MUNDADAN HOUSE,
KOTTEKKAD, P.O. KUTTUR, THRISSUR-680 013.
2 DENIL JOHN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. JOHNY, RESIDING AT THAIKKATTIL HOUSE,
KOTTEKKAD,KUTTOOR, THRISSUR-680 013
BY ADVS.T.C.SURESH MENON
P.S.APPU
RESPONDENT:
VINU C. KUNJAPPAN
FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY,
THRISSUR CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR-680 001
BY ADV SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C)NO.824 of 2021
:: 2 ::
Dated this the 20th day of July, 2021
JUDGMENT
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ.
Alleging non compliance of judgment dated 5.11.2020 in
W.A.No.577 of 2020, instant contempt petition is filed. Writ
appeal was filed by the District Town Planner, Thrissur
challenging the judgment of the writ court in W.P.
(C)No.15852/2019 by which, Thrissur Corporation was directed
to consider the application for building permit on the basis of
the revised master plan or in the alternate on the basis of the
directions issued in Exts.P11 and P12 judgments in respect to
adjacent properties.
2. On 22.6.2021, on instructions, Mr.Santhosh P.Poduval,
learned Standing Counsel appearing for Thrissur Corporation
submitted that the matter would be considered by Thrissur
Municipal Corporation on 23.6.21 and depending upon the
decision taken by the Corporation, Secretary would
communicate the decision to the contempt petitioners.
Con.Case(C)NO.824 of 2021
:: 3 ::
3. On this day, when the matter came up for further
hearing, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the request of
the petitioners has not been considered on the ground that the
Corporation has decided to acquire the land in question for the
purpose of setting up a lorry terminal.
4. Mr.T.C.Suresh Menon, learned counsel for the
contempt petitioners contended that the decision of Thrissur
Corporation is only with a mala fide intention and that too, at
this distance of time.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials available on record.
6. It is true that a Division Bench of this court has granted
liberty to the petitioners to issue a statutory purchase notice in
terms of Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning
Act, 2016. However, considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to invoke the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as no positive
direction was given in judgments in W.P.(C) No.15852/19
and in W.A.No.577/2020 to accept the request of the
Con.Case(C)NO.824 of 2021
:: 4 ::
contempt petitioners. If the contempt petitioners are aggrieved
by the decision of Thrissur Municipal Corporation, it is always
open to them to challenge the same in accordance with law.
With the above observation, Contempt petition is closed.
sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
sd/-
SHAJI P CHALY
JUDGE
jes
Con.Case(C)NO.824 of 2021
:: 5 ::
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO. 577/2020 ON THE
FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 5.11.2020.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE NOTICES SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONERS DATED 23.11.2020.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT DATED 23.11.2020 WITH TRANSLATION.
// TRUE COPY //
P.S. TO JUDGE
