G. SIVASWAMI, S/O. GANGADHAR Vs. RAVEENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Contempt of Court Case, the petitioner alleges that in disobedience of the interim order Annexure A which was extended by Annexures B and C, the respondent had proceeded with certain constructions.

(2.) THE respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. The whole dispute is regarding an extent of 1.09 Acres of land in Survey No. 1482 of Wadakancherry Village, which according to the petitioner was being used as a cremation ground for the members of the petitioner -Sabha. Alleging that the Panchayat concerned, of which the respondent is the Secretary, has started construction of an Anganwadi there, the Writ Petition has been filed. By Annexure A order, this Court passed an interim order as prayed for, for a period of three weeks. The prayer in the interlocutory application was to pass an order of injunction restraining respondents 2 and 3 from making/proceeding with any construction whatsoever in the 1.09 Acres of land blocked in Sy. No. 148 of Wadakancherry Village. Alleging that in spite of the interim order which was passed after notice was served in the Writ Petition, the construction proceeded, this Contempt of Court Case is filed.

(3.) THE respondent, who is the Secretary of the Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit. It is averred in paragraph No. 3 that construction of the Anganwadi was entrusted with the Nirmithi Kendra, Thrissur as per agreement dated 28.2.2009. The District Collector, Thrissur is the Chairman and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur is the Secretary of the said Nirmithi Kendra. The structure stage was completed on 15.4.2010. What was left was only the finishing works such as plastering, flooring, white washing, etc. The materials for such finishing work were stored in the building. Exhibit R1(1) issued by the Executive Secretary and Project Manager of the Nirmithi Kendra was produced in support of the above plea. The allegation that at the time of filing of the Writ Petition, the foundation work alone have been commenced and respondents 2 and 3 after receiving notice attempted to construct an Anganwadi has been disputed. It is also explained in paragraph No. 4 that even though vakalath was filed on 18.5.2010, i.e.; the date on which interim order was passed, the Advocate appearing for the respondent was not aware of the posting. Finally, it is pointed out that the Nirmithi Kendra was not aware of the interim order and had started the finishing of the work, and after coming to know of the interim order, the work was stopped.