Sujith A.S vs Suhas.S Ias
2021 Latest Caselaw 9618 Ker

Con. Case(C)No.509/2021
IN WP(C). 17614/2020            -1-

            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 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943

        Con.Case(C).No.509 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 17614/2020

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17614/2020(S) OF HIGH COURT OF
                             KERALA


PETITIONER/S:

                SUJITH A.S.
                AGED 29 YEARS
                S/O.SUBRAMANIAN,RESIDING AT ARAMANGALAM
                VEEDU,THIRUNELLI.P.O,
                WAYANAD DISTRICT,PIN-670646.

                BY ADV. SRI.P.T.DINESH

RESPONDENT/S:

                SUHAS.S IAS
                AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
                PETITIONER,DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL
                STATION,KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682030.


OTHER PRESENT:

                R1 BY SRI TEK CHAND, SR GP

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con. Case(C)No.509/2021
IN WP(C). 17614/2020                 -2-




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2021

S. Manikumar, C.J.

Alleging willful disobedience of the directions issued in W. P.

(C) No. 17614 of 2020 dated 17.11.2020, instant contempt case is

filed against the District Collector, Ernakulam.

2. Short judgment in W. P. (C) No. 17614 of 2020 dated

17.11.2020, alleged to have been violated, is reproduced:-

"Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. As no adverse order is issued to the 3rd respondent, notice is waived.

2. On the basis of the averments and materials on record, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

"(i) Declare that delay on the part of the 1 st respondent in taking appropriate actions upon the Ext.P12 representation submitted by the petitioner as highly illegal, arbitrary and unjust.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Con. Case(C)No.509/2021

1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P12 representation in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a time limit stipulated by this Hon'ble court after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner."

3. Though the petitioner has sought for a declaration that delay on the part of the District Collector, Civil Station, Kakkanad (1st respondent) in taking appropriate action on Ext.P12 representation submitted by the petitioner as arbitrary and unjust, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would restrict his prayer for a direction to the District Collector, Civil Station, Kakkanad, to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P12 representation in accordance with law.

4. Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that he has no objection for the prayer being granted insofar as the representation is concerned.

5. Placing on record the above, we direct the District Collector, Civil Station, Kakkanad (respondent No.1) to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P12 representation in accordance with law. While doing so, the 1 st respondent shall issue notice to the 3rd respondent (Mr.T.S.Aboobacker). The said exercise be completed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to mention that adequate opportunity of hearing should be given to both parties.

Writ petition is disposed of as above."

3. Explaining the delay in implementation of the judgment, and Con. Case(C)No.509/2021

seeking extension of time, I. A. No. 1 of 2021 in W. P. (C) No. 17614

of 2020 is filed by the District Collector, Ernakulam. Relevant

portions in the affidavit filed for condonation and extension of time is

extracted hereunder:-

"3. It is submitted that the complaint is against the unauthorized construction of a house in the property comprised in Sy: Nos. 789/2011 of Block No. 5 of Thrikkakara North Village. The petitioner had earlier submitted Exhibit P9 compliant with the same subject matter as that of Exhibit P12.

On receipt of the complaint, a copy was forwarded to the Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and Tahsildar, Kanayannur on 25.06.2020 with a direction to carry out an enquiry and to take action in case of illegalities being found. Due to the Covid pandemic further steps could not be initiated. While so this Hon'ble Court considered the issue raised in Exhibit P9 & P12 complaints and rendered Judgment dated 17.11.2020. In obedience to the directions of this Hon'ble Court, another letter was given on 18.01.2021 seeking report from the Sub Court, Fort Kochi and Tahsildar, Kanayannur. While so, an inspection report of the Chief Town Planner (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram was received from the Government with respect to the property in question. In the report, it was stated that there is no illegality on the part of the Municipality in giving building permit and the Municipality has followed rules applicable to the building in question. Further, it is stated that necessary directions may be Con. Case(C)No.509/2021

given to the Municipal Secretary to take action, if necessary against the building after verifying the nature of the land on the basis of report from the Tahsildar. Therefore to ascertain as to whether there are any irregularities, the documents of the Village Officer as well as the report from Tahsildar are required. As stated above, the report has been sought for as per letter dated 18.01.2021. A reminder was issued to the Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and Tahsildar, Kanayannur on 09.03.2021. Currently the deponent is the District Election Officer in charge of Election for the Kerala Legislative Assembly of the District. Further, Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and Tahsildar, Kanayannur are the Electoral Registration Officers for the elections. Under the circumstances, further time of two months may be required for complying with the directions contained in the Judgment dated 17.11.2020.

4. There is a delay of 105 days in filing the application for extension of time. The delay in filing the petition for extension of time had occurred only due to time taken for completing the procedural formalities and also for other administrative exigencies. There is no willful laches or negligence on the part of the applicants either in complying with the Hon'ble Court Judgment or filing the petition for extension of time within a stipulated time. It is also submitted that, unless the delay is condoned and the accompanying petition for extension of time allowed, it would cause irreparable injury and hardships to the applicants.

Con. Case(C)No.509/2021

5. Hence, It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 105 days in filing the petition for extension of time and allow the accompanying petition, granting a further period of 2 months from 15.03.2021 to comply with the judgment dated 17.11.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 17614/2020."

4. Mr. Dinesh P. T., learned counsel for the contempt petitioner

submitted that though the District Collector, Ernakulam, the

respondent herein, acknowledged the receipt of the judgment on

30.11.2020, he has initiated action only on 18.01.2021, i.e. after one

month from the date of receipt of the judgment, and in such

circumstances, prayed for initiating proceedings against the

respondent, invoking the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971.

5. True that there is delay in initiating action, but we are of the

view that delay alone would not constitute willful intention to violate

or disobey the directions issued by this Court in W. P. (C) No. 17614

of 2020 dated 17.11.2020. Averments extracted supra shows that the

District Collector, Ernakulam, the respondent herein, has addressed a

letter dated 18.01.2021, seeking a report from the Sub Collector, Fort Con. Case(C)No.509/2021

Kochi, and the Tahsildar, Kanayannur, and thereafter has explained as

to how things progressed. District Collector, Ernakulam, is also the

District Election Officer in charge of Election for the Kerala

Legislative Assembly of the District, and Sub Collector, Fort Kochi

and Tahsildar, Kanayannur, are the Electoral Registration Officers for

the elections.

6. We are satisfied with the reasons assigned by the District

Collector, Ernakulam, the respondent, in not complying with the

directions, within the time stipulated in the judgment dated 17.11.2020

in W. P. (C) No. 17614 of 2020.

7. Having regard to the steps taken by the District Collector,

Ernakulam, the respondent, we deem it fit to condone the delay of 105

days in filing I. A. No. 1 of 2021 for extension of time.

8. For the very same reasons, we also extend the time for

consideration of Ext. P12 representation dated 19.06.2020, and orders

to be passed thereon, for a further period of two months from

15.03.2021.

Con. Case(C)No.509/2021

9. C. M. Application No. 2 of 2021 filed for condonation of

delay in filing the application for extension of time and I. A. No. 1 of

2021 filed for extension of time are ordered. Respondent is directed to

complete the process and pass orders as directed supra.

In the light of the above orders, contempt case is closed, leaving

liberty to the petitioner to reopen, if required.

Sd/-

S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

Eb

///TRUE COPY///

P. A. TO JUDGE Con. Case(C)No.509/2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2020 IN W.P(C)NO.17614/2020.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 24.11.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 30.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER,ERNAKULAM.

ANNEXURE A3(A) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE-

A3.