JOY Vs. IMPE SEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above contempt of court cases came up for consideration on the basis of the reference orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 13th February, 2019 and 3rd December, 2018, respectively. The direction issued in Annexure-1 judgment to the alleged contemnor herein, was to consider the application of the petitioners submitted under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLU Order) and to pass an appropriate orders as to whether the utilization of the land for other purposes can be permitted or not. The petitioners were directed to produce an order from the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) to prove that the land in question was not reclaimed in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

(2.) Evidently, the alleged contemnor had passed an order in compliance with the directions contained in Annexure-1 judgment. Copy of the said order is produced along with a Memo filed by the Government Pleader, dated 1 st December 2018. It would indicate that, despite non-production of the certificate from the LLMC, it became convinced that the reclamation was carried on prior to enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act. However, the permission for conversion was rejected for other reasons.

(3.) The petitioner alleges that, by issuing such an order the respondent had disobeyed or violated the directions contained in Annexure-1 judgment. Observation made by the learned Single Judge while referring the matter to this court is only to the effect that the decision taken by the respondent is against the dictum settled in various precedents like Puthan Purakkal Joseph V. Sub Collector (2015 (3) KLT 182), Shivadasan V. Revenue Divisional Officer (2017 (3) KLT 822) and Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat V. Mariumma (2015 (2) KLT 516). Therefore there is prima facie contemptuous act on the part of the respondent herein; is the finding.