O.P. SREEDHARA MENON Vs. K. AMARNATH SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER dismissal of an appeal preferred by the State against the declaration given by the Forest Tribunal, that the property is not a 'private forest' vested with the Government and the failure, if any, on the part of the Government/Department to restore possession, will by itself give rise to a cause of action to proceed against the respondent(s) /State by way of Contempt of Court, is the primary point to be considered in these cases. Whether non-implementation of the 'Undertaking' given before the Court will constitute an offence of contempt always, irrespective of the circumstances under which such Undertaking was given, is the next point to be answered. Will the non-compliance with the 'Undertaking' give rise to any 'Criminal contempt' is the further point to be considered in COC (CRL.)2/2011-Suo Motu. Whether initiation of such Suo Motu contempt as per the order dated '30-3-2011' in respect of the alleged breach of Undertaking dated '3-4-2006' is permissible to be pursued further, in view of statutory bar of limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, is the fourth question to be dealt with. If the non-compliance is by virtue of the subsequent developments or by virtue of the operation of law, will it attract the offence of contempt, is the last point to be clarified.

(2.) COC .(C)No.l484 of 2005 has been filed by the petitioners alleging willful disobedience in respect of non implementation of the judgment dated 9-4-2003 passed by this Court in MFA. 120 of 1998, whereas COC (Crl.)No. 2/2011 is in respect of the violation of the Undertaking given on 3-4-2006.

(3.) A detailed affidavit was filed from the part of the respondents in the said I. A., pointing out that a substantial extent of the property had been subsequently notified by the Government under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'EFL' Act), whereby such extent came to be vested with the Government by virtue of Section 3(1) of the said Act. The balance available was only 4.7603 hectares, which was already restored, as per the order dated 15-9-2006; but the same was refused to be accepted by the beneficiaries, for which the respondent/s cannot be found fault with.