Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No. 910 of 2023, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN`** ## **`&`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1945 CON.CASE(C) NO. 910 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14347/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF ``` ## **`KERALA`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 THIRUVARATTUKAVU DEVI (PERPETUAL MINOR) AGED 56 YEARS, REP. BY ASOK KUMAR. K (DEVOTEE) MUTTATTIL VEEDU, KOLLAMPUZHA, ATTINGAL P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695101`** - **`2 RENJITH R, AGED 32 YEARS R.R.BHAVAN, KOLLAMPUZHA, ATTINGAL P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695101 BY ADVS. C.R.REGHUNATHAN P.VIJAYAKUMAR R.BALAKRISHNAN B.HARRYLAL`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 MRS. ALKA UPADHYAYA SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGH WAYS, PARIVAHAN BHAVAN, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001`** - **`2 P.PRADEEP PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, TC/36/414(3),NEAR NSS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALKULAMGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695024 SRI S.MANU - DSGI`** ``` THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Cont.Case(C)No.910 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioners have filed this Contempt Case, alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure 1 judgment of this Court dated 29.08.2022 in W.P.(C)No.14347 of 2021 and connected matters, whereby those writ petitions were disposed of with the following directions; “In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of by setting aside the order dated 15.05.2021 of the Special Deputy Collector and Competent Authority [Ext.P12 in W.P(C)Nos.14183 of 2021 and 14347 of 2021 and Ext.P7 in W.P(C)No.17244 of 2021] for the reason that it is one issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, without giving due consideration to the points in controversy. The Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways is directed to nominate a competent officer in the said Ministry having the necessary expertise, to reconsider the objections raised by the petitioners regarding the alignment of Attingal Bypass between Ch:530+800 and Ch:530+900, who shall take an appropriate decision on the said objections, taking note of the law laid down hereinbefore, after affording the petitioners in these writ petitions and the concerned officers of NHAI and the DPR Consultant an opportunity of personal hearing. It would be open to both sides to submit written submissions before the officer nominated by the Secretary, Ministry of 3 Cont.Case(C)No.910 of 2023 Road Transport and Highways, raising legal and factual contentions, which shall be dealt with appropriately, while taking a decision on the objections raised by the petitioners. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.” 2. On 13.04.2023, when this Contempt Case came up for admission, this Court issued notice to the respondents by speed post, returnable within four weeks. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India sought time to get instructions. Personal appearance of the respondents was dispensed with. 3. On 22.05.2023, when this Contempt Case came up for consideration, The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondents, which is one sworn to by the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of that affidavit read thus; “5. In compliance of the same a competent committee of officers with expertise was constituted by RO, NHAI Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram to review the allegations raised in the course of construction of Bypass-Attingal. The committee conducted site visit on 14.05.2022 at Thiruvarattukavu Temple premises and found certain genuineness in the grievances raised regarding the affection of holy structures of 4 Cont.Case(C)No.910 of 2023 the temple at CH: KM: 530+800 to 530+900 in Sy.No.642 of Attingal village. Hence, the committee has recommended to terminate the service road (LHS) for a length of 165m adjacent to the temple structure and to provide two additional Vehicular Under Pass for providing crossing facility for the public to safeguard the temple including the boundary structures. Accordingly, the design is in progress by the Engineering, Procurement and Construction Contractor and the Contractor has submitted a proposal wherein left side service road from KM 530+745- KM 530+910 is proposed to be avoided. 6. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is totally redressed as no part of the temple structure is coming under acquisition or demolition. The above decision has already been communicated to the District Collector, Trivandrum and CALA Trivandrum vide letter no.12821/PIU-TVM/KADKAZ/Gen/2022-23/2749 dated 24.03.2023 for revision of acquisition plan of the remaining land in Sy.No.642 of Attingal Village. The letter dated 24.03.2023 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(a).” The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted that the grievacne of the petitioners has been redressed, as stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought time to get instructions and accordingly, the matter was ordered to be listed on 30.05.2023 for further consideration. 5 Cont.Case(C)No.910 of 2023 4. On 30.05.2023, the matter was adjourned to 13.06.2023 for the petitioner to file reply affidavit. On 13.06.2023, the petitioner was granted further time to file reply affidavit as last chance. 5. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks adjournment. 6. As already noticed in the order dated 22.05.2023, in terms of the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 29.08.2022 in W.P.(C)No.14347 of 2021, the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India has already passed an order dated 24.03.2023, which is placed on record along with the affidavit as Annexure R1(a). If the petitioners are feeling aggrieved by Annexure R1(a) order, it is for them to challenge it in appropriate proceedings. 7. As held by this Court in **Valsala Kumari Devi M. v. B. Srinivas I.A.S and others [2018 (5) KHC 59]** , a Court considering a Contempt Petition need only be satisfied that there is no deliberate and willful action not to comply with the judgment. In the process of such adjudication, the Court need not also 6 Cont.Case(C)No.910 of 2023 analyse the order passed in compliance with the direction, in forensic precision and skill, so as to unearth the illegality of the order and proceed in contempt. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said decision read thus; “13. The stand adopted by the 3[rd] respondent is on the basis of a legal circumstance and this Court is not expected to go deeply into the merits of the matter in a contempt proceedings. Be it noted in a contempt proceeding the sole aspect that is to be identified is, whether there is any wilful and contumacious act on the part of the respondents so as to undermine the prestige and dignity of this Court. Which thus also means, there is no legal inhibition created in adopting a fair and legal stand on the basis of an opinion formed with bonafides. True, the opinion so formed may be incorrect and illegal, but that by itself cannot be converted or transformed so as to have a cause of action for proceeding in contempt. This is more so, since petitioner is left with a remedy to seek adjudication of the issue in a suitably constituted proceedings. So much so, a court considering a contempt petition need only be satisfied that there is no deliberate and wilful action not to comply with the judgment. In the process of such adjudication, this Court need not also analyse the order passed in compliance with the direction, with forensic precision and skill, so as to unearth the illegality of the order and proceed in contempt. Apart from all these, the legal contentions raised against declining increment is demonstrative of the fact that, serious and material 7 Cont.Case(C)No.910 of 2023 adjudication is required to the issue. 14. Therefore, if the petitioner has any grievance against the orders passed accordingly, and the petitioner is entitled to more benefits in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in the judgment, it is for the petitioner to pursue the said remedy. Further, evaluation of the circumstances put forth by the rival parties, instils confidence in me that there is no wilful and deliberate attempt on the part of the respondents to interfere with the integrity, prestige and dignity of this Court. That being the situation, I am of the considered opinion that, the respondents have not committed any contempt of the judgment rendered by this Court.” In the result, this contempt case is closed, without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the petitioners. ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** **yd** 8 Cont.Case(C)No.910 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX`** |**`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`**|**`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`**| |---|---| |**`Annexure1`**|**`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED`**| ||**`29/08/2022 IN WP©14347/2021`**| |**`Annexure2`**|**`TRUE COPY FEW PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE`**| ||**`ENCROACHMENT MADE BY THE NHAI UNDER THE`**| ||**`2ND RESPONDENT, PROJECT OFFICER`**| |**`Annexure3`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT`**| ||**`APPEARED IN 'MATHRUBHUMI' DAILY DATED`**| ||**`24/03/2023`**| |**`Annexure4`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE`**| |**`Annexure5`**|**`TRUE COPY THE LETTER TO THE DISTRICT`**| ||**`COLLECTOR DATED 29/03/2023`**| |**`RESPONDENT ANNEXURES`**|| |**`Annexure R1(a)`**|**`True copy of the Letter No. 12821/PIU-`**| ||**`TVM/KAD-KAZ/Gen/2022-23/2749 dated`**| ||**`24.03.2023`**|