Mani Augusti vs Maheshkumar P.K
2021 Latest Caselaw 21401 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
     FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                        CON.CASE(C) NO. 1399 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19403/2014 DATED 21.2.2019 OF HIGH
                         COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:

             MANI AUGUSTI,
             AGED 77 YEARS,
             S/O. AUGUSTI, KALAPPARAMBATHHOUSE, HOUSE NO. 6736/9,
             CHERNNADU, ALANGAD P.O., PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-
             683511.

             BY ADVS.
             KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY
             D.G.VIPIN
             ANJANA JOSHI



RESPONDENT/S:

             MAHESHKUMAR P.K., AGED 49 YEARS,
             SECRETARY, ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ALANGAD P.O., NORTH
             PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683511.

             BY SRI.DINESH MATHEW J MURICKEN




     THIS    CONTEMPT    OF   COURT    CASE     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1399 OF 2021
                                       -2-




                               JUDGMENT

This contempt petition is filed complaining that the directives

contained in the judgment dated 21.02.2019 in W.P.(C).No.19403/2014,

is not complied with. On the basis of the directions issued by this Court

on 22.10.2021, an affidavit is filed by the respondent, wherein it is

stated that, the directions issued by this Court is complied with, though

belatedly.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the directions

are not complied with fully.

3. Anyhow, from the judgment what I could gather is that,

direction was issued to take appropriate action in order to implement

the order of the Ombudsman, taking into account the measurement

carried out as is directed by the Ombudsman. Therefore, even

according to the petitioner, there is substantial compliance, and if it is

not fully satisfied, it is for the petitioner to take up the matter in

accordance with law. The relevant portion of the affidavit filed by the CON.CASE(C) NO. 1399 OF 2021

respondent, is extracted hereunder, for convenience:

"5) In pursuant to the judgment in WP(C) No:19403 of 2014, the respondent issued notice under section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to the respondents No:4 and 5 in WP(C) No:19403/2014 on 14.03.2019 to demolish 50 cm of the sunshade of the building constructed by them which is protruding into the adjacent property belonging to the petitioner. The respondents nos.4 and 5 in WP(C) No:19403/2014 did not comply with the notice issued by the respondent herein.

6) Thereafter, also the respondent had issued notices under Section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act to the respondents 4 and 5 in WP(C) No:19403 of 2014 to remove the construction protruding into the property of the petitioner, but, they failed to comply with the notices issued under Section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

7) On 06.09.2021, panchayat had again issued notice no:A2-2806/14 under Section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to the respondents Nos.4 and 5 in WP(C) No:19403/2014 to demolish the sunshade of their building projecting into the petitioner's property within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice. The respondents nos. 4 and 5 respectively in CON.CASE(C) NO. 1399 OF 2021

WP(C) No:19403/2014 filed WP(C) No: 20342/2021 before this Honourable Court challenging the notice of the Secretary to demolish the sunshade of the residential building. The writ petition has been dismissed by this Honourable Court on 28.09.2021 stating that the petitioners to avail of the alternative remedy available to then under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The respondent issued order confirming the provisional order by proceeding No.A2-2806/14 dated 30.09.2021 and directing the respondents 4 and 5 in WP(C) No:19403/2014 to demolish the construction protruding into the property of the petitioner within 15 days and it was specifically stated in the notice that the construction protruding into the property of the petitioner will be removed and expenditure for the same will be recovered from the respondents 4 and 5 in WP(C) No:19403/2014. The respondents 4 and 5 in WP(C) No: 19403/2014 failed to remove the constructions protruding into the property of the petitioner. The construction protruding into the property of the petitioner was cut and removed on 20.10.2021 and complied with the direction of this Honourable Court in WP(C) No:19403/2014. The delay in complying with the direction in WP(C) No:19403/2014 only was due to the Covid-19 pandemic situation and there was no wilful disobedience, laches or negligence on the part of the respective herein." CON.CASE(C) NO. 1399 OF 2021

4. In view of the substantial compliance of the order, I do not find

any reason to pursue with this contempt petition any further.

The contempt of court case is closed accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

uu 03.11.2021 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1399 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1399/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 21/02/2019 IN WPC NO. 19403/2014 AND WPC NO.24885/2017.

Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14/03/2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 14/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.

Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 27/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

Annexure E TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 12/02/2020 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT.