Ajithkumar G vs Narasimhugara T.L. Reddy
2021 Latest Caselaw 18869 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 18869 Ker
Judgement Date : 10 September, 2021

Kerala High Court

Ajithkumar G vs Narasimhugara T.L. Reddy on 10 September, 2021

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
  FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943
                 CON.CASE(C) NO. 679 OF 2021
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/05/2020 IN WP(C).No.19785 of
                 2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/S:

          AJITHKUMAR G., AGED 54 YEARS, K.G.BHAVAN,
          T.C NO. 30/217, OPP U.P SCHOOL, ANAYARA P.O,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 029

          BY ADV BASANT BALAJI



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     NARASIMHUGARA T.L. REDDY
          AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
          DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
          676 001

    2     HARIKUMAR,
          AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
          REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADOOR DIVISIONAL
          OFFICER, ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA 676 012

          BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER



OTHER PRESENT:

          SRI S.RENJITH - SPL GP TO ADDL A.G

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 679 OF 2021
                                     -2-


                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this contempt of court case alleging

non-compliance of the directions contained in Annexure-1

judgment of this Court dated 21.05.2020 in W.P.(C) No.19785 of

2012, whereby that writ petition was disposed of with a direction

that in case respondents 5 to 7 in the writ petition are

undertaking any excavation of earth from their property, without

obtaining necessary permit and complying with the statutory

requirements, it would be open to the petitioner to move a

proper representation before respondents 1 and 2 herein, for

redressal of his grievance and that, if any such representation is

received, respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the same and pass

appropriate orders on that representation, with notice to the

petitioner and also to respondents 5 to 7.

2. On 07.07.2021 when this contempt case came up for

consideration, the learned Government Pleader on instructions

submitted that the 2nd respondent has already passed

proceedings dated 24.04.2021 and a copy of the same will be

produced along with a memo. The learned Government Pleader

was directed to get instructions as to whether the disposal of the

representation made by the petitioner was with notice to him. CON.CASE(C) NO. 679 OF 2021

3. On 11.08.2021, when this contempt case came up for

consideration, this Court passed the following order:

"The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, on 17.04.2021, the petitioner received the notice issued by the 2nd respondent, regarding the personal hearing scheduled on 20.04.2021. On 19.04.2021, Ward No.93, Thiruvananthapuram Corporation was declared as containment zone. Therefore, the petitioner, vide e-mails dated 19.04.2021 and 20.04.2021 requested respondents 1 and 2 to grant adjournment. Despite such a request, the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer issued proceedings dated 24.04.2021, a copy of which is produced along with the memo filed by the learned Government Pleader, wherein it is stated that the petitioner failed to appear for the personal hearing held on 20.04.2021.

The learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether respondents 1 and 2 received the request made by the petitioner for adjournment, vide e-mails dated 19.04.2021 and 20.04.2021. In case respondents 1 and 2 are in receipt of those e-mails, the 2 nd respondent shall file an affidavit, explaining the facts and circumstances in issuing proceedings dated 24.04.2021, without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, despite the specific direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment. The 2nd respondent shall offer his explanation for not marking a copy of proceedings dated 24.04.2021 to the petitioner."

CON.CASE(C) NO. 679 OF 2021

The respondent has filed an affidavit on 02.09.2021 and the

petitioner filed objections to that affidavit, on 09.09.2021. On

08.09.2021, this Court passed the following order:

"From paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, it is seen that, despite receipt of two e-mails dated 19.04.2021 and 20.04.2021, seeking adjournment, the 2nd respondent conducted personal hearing on 20.04.2021 and passed an order, rejecting the complaint made by the petitioner as baseless. The specific stand taken by the petitioner is that, Ward No.93 in Thiruvananthapuram Corporation was declared as 'containment zone' on 19.04.2021 and therefore, the petitioner could not appear for the personal hearing.

The procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent while passing the aforesaid order, without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing, cannot be viewed lightly."

4. Today when the contempt case is taken up for

consideration, Sri.S.Renjith, learned Special Government Pleader

attached to Additional Advocate General, would submit that the

present incumbent holding the post of Revenue Divisional Officer

has already recalled the proceedings dated 24.04.2021, by an

order passed on this date. The 2nd respondent will conduct a

personal hearing on 24.09.2021 at 2:30 p.m., strictly in CON.CASE(C) NO. 679 OF 2021

conformity with the directions contained in Annexure-1 judgment

dated 21.05.2020 in W.P.(C) No.19785 of 2012 and pass

appropriate orders, within a further period of two weeks. The

learned Special Government Pleader would also submit that

reconsideration of the matter will be with due notice to the