Kerala High Court
N.Shajahan vs Sheeba George on 23 May, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
CON.CASE(C) NO. 742 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.12.2023 IN WP(C) NO.16740 OF
2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER:
N.SHAJAHAN
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O NOOR MUHAMMED ABBAS,
PROPRIETOR, SHAJI TRADERS,
MARKET ROAD, MUNNAR DAILY MARKET,
MUNNAR P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685612
BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 SHEEBA GEORGE
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
KUYILIMALA P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685601
2 ALEX BABY
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685612
3 RAJAN K ARAMANA
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MUNNAR POLICE STATION,MUNNAR,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685612
4 SANAL
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE,
MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUNNAR P.O.,
Cont. Case (C) No.742/24 -:2:-
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685612
5 THANKARAJ
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LTD. (ERSTWHILE TATA TEA
LTD), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, G.H COMPOUND,
MUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685612
BY ADV ARUN THOMAS
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont. Case (C) No.742/24 -:3:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------
Contempt Case (C) No.742 of 2024
---------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
By judgment dated 04.12.2023, this Court had directed the party
respondents 6 to 12 in the writ petition to confine their activity to the
permitted area of 16 Sq.ft and in case the Panchayat identifies that any
encroachment is made beyond the permitted limits, they would be at
liberty to cancel the permission granted to the aforementioned parties to
conduct their business. It was further observed that the direction shall be
issued only after granting an opportunity to confine their operation within
the permitted limits.
2. This contempt case has been filed alleging that the directions of
this Court have not been complied with by the respondent contemnor, as
the licenses of respondents 6 to 12 have not been cancelled, and further
that respondents 6 to 12 in the writ petition had put up illegal structures by
encroaching upon the passage contrary to the allotted space.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4 th respondent, who is
the Secretary-in-charge of the Munnar Grama Panchayat. It is averred in
the affidavit that pursuant to the receipt of the judgment, a meeting was
convened by the Panchayat Secretary with respect to respondents 6 to 12
and thereafter a site inspection was carried out and the areas allotted to
the party respondents were marked. It is also stated that respondents 6 to
12 were directed to remove the encroachments on or before 24.01.2024
and since they failed to remove the same, a show-cause notice was
issued to them, a copy of which is produced as Annexure R4(a). It is
stated that pursuant to the receipt of notice, respondents 6 to 12 have
complied with the directions. The deponent has also affirmed that after
receipt of the notice in the contempt petition, an inspection was conducted
and he noticed certain encroachment by respondents 6 to 12 into the
pathway. However, immediately after the inspection, they voluntarily
confined their shops to the demarcated area and the same has been
reported to the Panchayat. The 4 th respondent has asserted that
respondents 6 to 12 had now fully complied with the judgment and had
confined their shops to the allotted area.
4. I have heard Sri. Latheesh Sebastian, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.Arun Thomas, the learned Standing Counsel for the
Panchayat.
5. Though the counsel for the petitioner submitted that even now
respondents 6 to 12 in the writ petition have encroached into the public
property by constructing temporary structures, no action has been initiated
by the Panchayat, this Court is of the view that since it has been stated by
the 4th respondent that respondents 6 to 12 in the writ petition have
already confined themselves to the areas allotted and demarcated to
them, this Court finds no reason to proceed with this contempt further.
6. As observed earlier, after the areas allotted were identified and
demarcated pursuant to the judgment on noticing certain violations, the
fourth respondent issued a show-cause notice, after which respondents 6
to 12 in the writ petition confined their shops within the limits allotted.
7. As far as the temporary structures are concerned, a perusal of
the judgment would reveal that there is no observation regarding any
restriction or prohibition of construction of structures and the judgment had
only confined itself to the occupation of public areas beyond the permitted
limits.
In such a view of the matter, I find no merit in this contempt case
and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
APPENDIX
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO 16740/2023
DATED 04.12.2023
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25-1-2024
ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT TO THE
RESPONDENTS 6 TO 12.
