M.P.Manikantan vs Reghunath
2022 Latest Caselaw 5842 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
                             &
         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
 TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                 CON.CASE(C)NO.513 OF 2021
         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.01.2021 IN
   W.P.(C)NO.1311 OF 2021 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS:

    1     M.P.MANIKANTAN,
          AGED 49 YEARS,
          S/O.RAGHAVA PISHARADI,
          REGHU NIVAS, THALAYANAKKAD,
          KADAMBOOR P.O., OTTAPALAM,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

    2     BHASKARAN NAIR,
          AGED 71 YEARS
          S/O.LATE SANKARA PANICKER,
          PULATHARAKALAM P.O., THALAYANAKKAD,
          KADAMBOOR P.O., OTTAPALAM,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

          BY ADVS.
          K.MOHANAKANNAN
          SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA
          SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)
          SMT.D.S.THUSHARA
          SMT.T.V.NEEMA



RESPONDENT:

          REGHUNATH,
          AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
          PETITIONER, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
          THALAYANAKKAD SIVA TEMPLE,
          THALAYANAKKAD, KADAMBOOR P.O.,
 CON.CASE(C)NO.513 OF 2021

                               2

            OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678714.


OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN- STANDING COUNSEL,MALABAR
            DEVASWOM BOARD




      THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C)NO.513 OF 2021

                                      3




                               JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioners have filed this contempt case

alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in

Annexure A2 judgment of this Court dated 18.01.2021 in

W.P.(C)No.1311 of 2021. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment

reads thus;

"5. It is certain that the temple property remains properly enclosed with a gate at the entry point. A gate is a contrivance which restricts entry. The fact that there is a gate itself is an indication that the owner of the property has intended to regulate entry. The grievance of the petitioners is that some neighbouring land owners are taking vehicles through the gate and also transporting building materials through the property. From Ext.P4, it is certain that building materials are allowed to be taken through the property on the basis of the permission granted by the 3rd respondent. No doubt, a pathway passing through the temple property is being used by the neighbouring land owners. The 4 th respondent had permitted transport of building CON.CASE(C)NO.513 OF 2021

materials through vehicles through the property. The apprehension of the petitioners is that if the property of the temple is permitted to be used for passage of vehicles and also for transporting materials, that may ultimately result in transforming the property into a public way. Now the 2nd respondent has directed the 4th respondent for taking necessary steps for protecting the temple property and to prohibit the use of the property for transport of vehicles. We record the submission. In the light of the order dated 16.01.2021 issued by the 2 nd respondent, no doubt, the 4th respondent will take appropriate steps for abating any act that would render the temple property used as a public way for passage of vehicles. "

2. Today, when this case is taken up for

consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners and

also the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom

Board would submit that nothing survives in this contempt

case in view of the subsequent judgment of this Court in

W.P.(C)No.12535 of 2021 for ensuring strict compliance of

Annexure A1 judgment and since the directions contained

in that judgment has already been complied with. CON.CASE(C)NO.513 OF 2021

In such circumstances, recording the aforesaid

submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides,

this contempt case is closed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

MIN CON.CASE(C)NO.513 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 513/2021

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.J5/3653/2020/MDB ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 16.01.2021.

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.01.2021 IN WP(C) 1311/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD WITH POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS DATED 06.02.2021.