Joy vs Saji Tg
2021 Latest Caselaw 21155 Ker

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1638 OF 2021    1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
  WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA, 1943
                  CON.CASE(C) NO. 1638 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.09.2020 IN WP(C) 18928/2020 OF
                 HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:

          JOY,
          AGED 53 YEARS,
          S/O KURIYAPPAN,
          MANGALAN HOUSE, CHUNGAL DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE,
          CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680684.

          BY ADV N.L.BITTO



RESPONDENTS/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION:

    1     SAJI T.G.,
          AGE AND FATHER'S NAME AND ADDRESS NOT KNOWN,
          THE FORMER SECRETARY,
          MATTATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MATTATHUR P.O,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680684.

    2     HABEEB VAZHAYIL,
          AGE AND FATHER'S NAME AND ADDRESS NOT KNOWN,
          THE SECRETARY,
          MATTATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MATTATHUR P.O,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680684.

          BY ADVS.
          M.R.VENUGOPAL, SC
          DHANYA P.ASHOKAN




     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1638 OF 2021            2



                                   JUDGMENT

This Contempt Case is filed alleging non-compliance of the judgment

dated 15.09.2020 in W.P.(C) No.18928 of 2020.

2. While disposing of the writ petition this Court had directed the

respondent herein to take up Exhibit-P3 representation filed by the petitioner

and take a decision, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners as well as the affected parties.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that no orders as directed has

been passed by the respondent. It is contended that the grievance of the

petitioner was to initiate action based on the representation submitted by him

and to remove the unauthorised autorickshaw stand which was causing

obstruction to the establishment of the petitioner.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. It is

stated in the counter affidavit that in order to comply with the directions

issued by this Court, a Traffic Advisory Committee was constituted and the

site was inspected on more than one occasion. The committee noted that

there was no sufficient space for parking of vehicles and a report to that

effect was submitted. The Panchayat Committee considered the report and

decided not to grant sanction for the functioning of the Autorickshaw stand in

the place complained of by the petitioner and Annexure-R2(a) decision was

taken. Immediately thereafter, Annexure-R2(b) order was passed by the

Secretary prohibiting the functioning of the Autorickshaw stand at the

Avittappilly Junction. It is further stated that the Secretary has issued

Annexure-R2(c) and R2(d) communications to the Station House Officer,

Vellikulangara and Joint RTO, Chalakudy, and sought for initiating appropriate

measures to ensure that the order passed by the Panchayat is implemented.

5. Adv.Bitto, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that practically the auto stand is functioning in the very same area

and the directions are only in the papers.

6. Adv.Dhanya P. Ashokan, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents, submitted that the Panchayat has already issued orders

prohibiting the parking of the autorickshaws. It is submitted that the

Panchayat shall ensure that the orders passed by the Panchayat are

implemented in its letter and spirit.

7. Having considered the submissions, I am of the view that nothing

further survives in this Contempt Case. The only direction was to consider

and pass orders on the representations submitted by the petitioner. The

Annexures produced by the respondents would reveal that affirmative orders

have been passed in favour of the petitioner. However, it is made clear that

the respondents shall pursue the matter and ensure that the directions issued

by the Panchayat are complied with.

This Contempt Case (C) is closed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE DSV

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1638/2021

PETITIONER (S) ANNEXURE:

Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.18928 OF 2020 DATED 15/09/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

RESPONDENT (S) ANNEXURE:

Annexure R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 02.02.2021 OF THE MATTATHUR PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE.

Annexure R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1-6286/20 DATED 03.02.2021 PASSED BY THIS RESPONDENT.

Annexure R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A6-

4396/21 DATED 14.06.2021 ISSUED TO THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VELLIKULANGARA BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Annexure R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A6-

4396/21 DATED 14.06.2021 ISSUED TO THE JOINT R.T.O., CHALAKUDY BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.