C.K.RADHAKRISHNA PANICKER Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt petition is filed complaining disobedience of the directions given to respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant in the contempt petition and Mr.G.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-contemnor.

(2.) IN order to understand whether any contempt is committed by the respondent-contemnor or not, one has to necessarily look into the facts right from the time of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17794/2008 dated 17.07.2009. It is not in dispute that the complainant as a writ petitioner approached the learned Single Judge complaining against the 4th respondent, a Committee which was managing the affairs of a temple that the 4th respondent has put up certain constructions encroaching into the Government Puramboke, in particular road. During the course of proceedings, a suggestion was made by the Court whether the measurement of the properties should be directed, provided a notice of such inspection for measurement is given to the parties. It is also not in dispute that an undertaking came to be filed by the respondent-contemnor in the writ petition seeking measurement of the properties based on the details reflected in the settlement register by saying "old records". The learned Single Judge has also referred to the details of the undertaking and ultimately passed the final order or direction which reads as under:-

(3.) ACCORDING to learned Senior counsel Mr.Sreekumar, though such an undertaking to demolish the encroached portion was given, but it was with a rider that, if the measurement was done on the basis of the old records (settlement register), then alone they were ready to demolish the encroached portion and not otherwise, i.e. if the measurement is not done in accordance with the settlement register, they are not liable to demolish the same. In order to understand the above direction in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, one has to necessarily refer to the proceedings in the Review Petition filed by the Temple in R.P.No.1081/2009.