Against The Judgment In Wp(C) ... vs By Adv. Sri.V.M.Krishnakumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 10769 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

     TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1943

          Con.Case(C).No.563 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 41508/2017

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 41508/2017(A) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC

             DR.C.RAJASEKHARAN
             AGED 58 YEARS
             S/O. SIVATHAM, THAIKKAD VILLAGE, VAZHUTHACAUD.
             M.P. APPAN NAGAR, THAICAUD P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

             BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN WPC

      1      DEEPA L.S
             AGE OF THE RESPONDENT AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO
             THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.

      2      ANJU.W.C.
             AGE OF THE RESPONDENT AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO
             THE PETITIONER, REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER, HOUSING BOARD
             BUILDING, SANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

             R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
             R1-2 BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                               2

Con.Case(C).No.563 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 41508/2017




                                    JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30th day of March 2021

This contempt petition is filed complaining

that the directives contained in the judgment dated

08.02.2019 in W.P.(C)No.41508/2017 is not complied

with.

2. The subject issue relates to a proposed

construction carried out by the petitioner,

application submitted by the petitioner and the

consequential direction issued by this Court to

finalise the application at the earliest possible

time. The grievance of the petitioner in the

contempt petition is that, the directions issued in

the judgment are not complied with.

3. However an affidavit is filed by the 1st

respondent, from where I am satisfied that certain

directions were issued to the petitioner by the

Secretary of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation in

order to process the application submitted by the

Con.Case(C).No.563 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 41508/2017

petitioner for building permit, which was not

complied with by the petitioner.

4. However, today when the matter was taken

up, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that, the directions issued by the Secretary were

complied with on 17.03.2021.

In that view of the matter, I do not think

there was any deliberate and willful action on the

part of the respondents in complying with the

directions issued by this Court in order to proceed

against them under the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971, atleast for the time being. That being so,

nothing survives to be considered in the contempt

petition, the Contempt of Court case is closed

accordingly.

SD/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE hmh

Con.Case(C).No.563 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 41508/2017

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NP.

41508/2017 DATED 08.02.2019.

ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE CONCURRENCE GRANTED BY THE REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER DATED 30.06.2015 TO DR. MAHESH.

RESPODENT'S/S EXHIBITS:                     NIL