Salim vs Joy Mohan Wilfred
2022 Latest Caselaw 1755 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
        Wednesday, the 16th day of February 2022 / 27th Magha, 1943
  IA.NO.1/2021 IN CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 734 OF 2021(S) IN WP(C) 27474/2020

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

     SALIM, AGED 54, S/O. ABDUL AZIZ, DARUL AJMAL (SALIM MANZIL),
     KUNNIKKODU P.O., VILAKKUDY, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM - 691 508

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

     JOY MOHAN WILFRED, S/O. WILFRED, AGED 48 YEARS,
     SECRETARY, VILAKKUDI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
     KUNNIKKODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 508

     Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to reopen the contempt
proceedings and post the same for further follow up actions contemplated
under Section 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
     This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and this court's judgment
dated 14.07.2021 in COC and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.
K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR and K.K.CHANDRALEKHA, Advocates for the petitioner in
IA/COC and of SRI. M.R.SASITH Advocate for the respondent in IA/COC, the
court passed the following:
                           A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         I.A. No.1 of 2021
                                 in
                   Cont. Case (C) No.734 of 2021
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Dated this the 16th day of February,                                        2022

                                   O R D E R

This is an application to reopen the contempt case

saying that the respondent has misrepresented this Court by

making submissions that the orders have been complied. This

Contempt Case is arising out of an interim order passed by

this Court on 9.12.2020. When the matter was taken up

subsequently on 20.01.2021, in the writ petition, this Court

noted the submission of the learned counsel for the Panchayat

to the effect that an order has already been passed on the

application. The same stand has been taken before this Court

in the Contempt Case also. It is seen from the communication

issued by the Panchayat on 18.12.2020, the Panchayat

communicated to the petitioner that the application for

license cannot be considered without the consent of the land

owner. According to the petitioner, since his application

has not been rejected, the submission made by the learned

counsel for the Panchayat was misleading. I.A. No.1 of 2021 in Cont. Case (C) No.734 of 2021

I do not find any error in making such submission. The

Panchayat in unequal terms convey to the petitioner that the

application cannot be considered for want of consent, whether

it has to be construed as rejection or not, does not require

any further affirmation from this Court. The Panchayat asked

the petitioner to produce the consent for proceeding further.

It is for the petitioner to produce the consent and apprise

the Panchayat. It is also open for the petitioner to implead

the owner of the property. With liberty to agitate all

contentions in the litigation, in this writ petition, I.A. is

closed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE PR

16-02-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar