Mankombu Sree Bhagavathi Temple Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi v. Sanal Kumar, Special Tahasildar (Land Conservancy), Travancore Devaswom Board, Nanthancode, Thiruvananthapuram & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1942** **CON.CASE(C).NO.1796 OF 2020 IN WP(C).NO.1999 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.1999/2019(Y) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **PETITIONER/3RD PARTY:** **MANKOMBU SREE BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE KSHETHRA UPADESHAKA SAMITHI, MANKOMBU, REP. BY SECRETARY, SATHYASEELAN NAIR, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, AGED 63, PANIKKARIDAM, MANKOMBU P.O., ALAPPUZHA** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANILAL, SRI.S.NIDHEESH** **RESPONDENT/5TH RESPONDENT IN WP(C).NO.1999 OF 2019:** **SANAL KUMAR, NOW WORKING AS THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LAND CONSERVANCY), TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003** **SRI.G.BIJU, STANDING COUNSEL** **THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **(C.R.)** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -----------------------------------------Cont. Case (C) No. 1796 of 2020 in W.P. (C) No. 1999 of 2019 & W.P. (C) No. 1999 of 2019 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of November, 2020 ## C O M M O N J U D G M E N T / O R D E R The above Contempt of Court has been filed alleging non compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 12.2.2019 in WP(C).No.1999/2019. The petitioner in the Contempt case is not a party to the writ proceedings and is stated to be the Temple Advisory Committee (Mankombu Sree Bhagavathi Temple Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi) in respect of the abovesaid temple which comes under the statutory jurisdiction of the Travancore Devaswom Board in terms of the provisions contained in the Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The writ petitioner is a person who claims to be very much interested in the affairs of the temple and he had initiated the abovesaid proceedings to ensure that the land conservancy proceedings that is pending is finalized in accordance with law, as against the persons who have illegally encroached into the said Devaswom property. Since the abovesaid judgment has not been complied with for a very long time, the petitioner in the Contempt case, though a third party to the writ proceedings says Cont. Case (C) No. 1796/2020 in W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 & W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** that the said Committee is deeply interested in the affairs of the temple and is also intimately connected with the affairs of said temple, who has the _locus standi_ to initiate the contempt proceedings in question. 2. Now it appears that, the judgment in above WP(C) has been rendered on 12.2.2019 and the certified copy of the judgment would have been served on the respondent officer concerned (Special Tahasildar (Land Conservancy), Travancore Devaswom Board, Nanthancode, Thiruvananthapuram) some time by the last week of February, 2019 or by the first week of March, 2019. Therefore it appears that, the one year period of limitation contemplated in Sec.20 of the Contempt of Courts Act for taking cognizance of civil contempt would have expired by the first or second week of March, 2020, by the latest. It is presumably in the light of these aspects that the Registry has noted a defect that the contempt of court case may be barred by limitation in view of the abovesaid aspects. It has to be borne in mind that this Court as a constitutional court of record, has a plenary and constitutional powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to deal with even in matter in respect of Cont. Case (C) No. 1796/2020 in W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 & W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 ..4.. contempt. Further, plenary powers are also conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the above proceedings itself has been initiated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in an appropriate case, where there is grave injustice or there is non compliance of judgment would have serious deleterious and contumacious consequences, or it would be detrimentally affect the public interest etc, then it is not as if the Court is helpless in the matter. A constitution court on record, like the High Courts cannot be helpless in the matter, so as to straightaway dismiss the contempt petition even in such cases, merely on the ground that, the 1 year period of limitation envisaged in Sec.20 of the Contempt of Courts Act has come into play. In the instant case the property is that of a temple which is under the statutory jurisdiction of Travancore Devaswom Board, which is a statutory regulatory body constituted as per the provisions of the Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. 3. The allegations in the case is that, the properties of the temple devaswom in question have been illegally encroached by outsiders with a result that valuable and precious property of the Cont. Case (C) No. 1796/2020 in W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 & W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 ..5.. temple devaswom is being enjoyed by others and it would detrimentally affect the interest of the beneficiaries of the temple. Therefore, if as a matter of fact there has been any illegal encroachment and statutory land conservancy proceedings has not so far been finalized by the statutory officer concerned, then it is not as if the Court should turn a "Nelson's eye" to such a scenario, and in situations like this the Court has the constitutional obligation to ensure that miscarriage of justice or contumacious conducts having deleterious consequences to the legal system are avoided at any cost and at any rate to ensure that public interest is also duly subserved. 4. Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader submits that, he has been instructed by the respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), Travancore Devaswom Board, to appear and submit on his behalf that, he has taken charge only recently and he would not stand on any technicalities, and that he would take all reasonable endeavours possible to ensure that the directions rendered by this Court in judgment dated 12.2.2019 in WP(C).No.1999/2019 is properly and effectively complied with in the manner known to law. Further, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Cont. Case (C) No. 1796/2020 in W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 & W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 ..6.. Senior Government Pleader would submit on the basis of instructions of the respondent officer that, this Court may extend the time limit stipulated for compliance of directions in the judgment dated 12.2.2019 in WP(C).No.1999/2019 by a reasonable period so as to facilitate necessary action to the complied with by the respondent officer. Further it is also pointed out that, the respondent officer has instructed him to submit that, now on enquiry it is found that recently he has conducted a site inspection and it has been found that two persons are claiming that they are tenants in the property and thus they have raised 3[rd] party claims alleging that they have rights not to be disturbed except in the manner known to law. 5. Those are all aspects to be examined by the respondent officer and the same need not detain the consideration of this Court in this proceedings. The Full Bench of this Court in the judgment in _**Mayilswami v. State of Kerala [1995 (2) KLT 178 (FB)]**_ had construed the effect of limitation prescribed in Sec.20 of the Contempt of Courts Act and held therein _(see paras 2 & 4 thereof)_ that the powers of the Supreme Court and the High Court being Constitutional Courts of Record as embodied in Articles 129 & 215 of Cont. Case (C) No. 1796/2020 in W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 & W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 ..7.. the Constitution respectively, cannot be restricted and trammeled by any ordinary legislation including the provisions in the Contempt of Courts Act, and that the inherent powers of the Supreme Court or the Apex Courts and the High Courts are elastic, unfettered and not subjected to any limit. Further that, as the power conferred upon the Apex Court and the High Courts being Constitutional Courts of Record under Article 129 & 215 of the Constitution of India, the same is inherent power and as jurisdiction vested in these courts is a special one and not derived from any other statutes but from the abovesaid Articles of the Constitution of India, such constitutional power cannot be abridged by any legislation or abrogated or cut down. The Full Bench of this Court also noted that, Sec.20 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides that no court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Sec.20 cannot make any inroad into the power vested in the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The period mentioned in Sec.20 cannot be made applicable to a case of contempt of the High Court and that Cont. Case (C) No. 1796/2020 in W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 & W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 ..8.. any High Court has power to determine questions about its own jurisdiction and it has inherent power to punish for its contempt summarily and that period of limitation in Sec.20 of the Contempt of Courts Act cannot trammel or restrict the constitutional powers as aforestated, etc. 6. However, the Apex Court in the decision in _**Om Prakash Jaiswal v. D.K.Mittal & Anr [(2000) 3 SCC 171]**_ has _inter alia_ held in para 15 thereof that, Sec.20 of the Contempt of Courts Act strikes at the jurisdiction of courts to initiate any proceedings for contempt. Subsequently the Full Bench of this Court in the decision in _**Damodaran v. Cherkalam Abdulla [2007 (2) KLT 171 (FB)]**_ has held that, the earlier view rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in _**Mayilswami's case supra**_ that limitation is not applicable etc is no more good law in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Om Prakash Jaiswal's case supra,**_ and that the abovesaid dicta with regard to application of Sec.20 of the Contempt of Courts Act was affirmed by a three judge bench of the Apex Court in _**Pallav Sheth v. Cutodian & Ors. [(2001) 7 SCC 549]**_ etc. 7. This Court is now concerned only with the issue relating Cont. Case (C) No. 1796/2020 in W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 & W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** to civil contempt as envisaged in the Contempt of Courts Act and the Rules framed thereunder, and not criminal contempt. 8. Sri.C.S.Manilal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri.G.Biju, learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, would submit that this Court in exercise of its powers may pass appropriate orders to ensure that the time limit stipulated for the compliance of the judgment dated 12.2.2019 in WP(C).No.1999/2019 is duly extended, so that the respondent officer can comply the directions of this Court, etc. 9. In the light of abovesaid submissions of all the parties and in view of the abovesaid aspects mentioned herein above, it is ordered by taking recourse to the constitutional powers conferred under Articles 215 & 226 of the Constitution of India that the time limit stipulated in the judgment dated 12.2.2019 in WP(C).No.1999/2019 will stand extended by a further period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment/order. Hence it is ordered in WP(C).No.1999/2019 that, there cannot be any dispute that if the party concerned had sought for orders from this Court for extension of time limit stipulated in the Cont. Case (C) No. 1796/2020 in W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 & W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 **==> picture [24 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** judgment in the disposed case, then certainly such an application would have been considered by this Court. If such a power is there, certainly, there cannot be any doubt that in view of the constitutional powers conferred on this Court under Article 226 & 215 of the Constitution of India, this Court will also have Suo Motu powers to ensure that the issue relating to extension of time limit stipulated for compliance of judgment is considered in appropriate cases where the interest of administration of justice and public interest etc so demand and warrant. After the expiry of the time limit, still if the judgment is not complied with, then the party aggrieved can move a fresh Contempt petition as to take cognizance thereof, within the period of limitation reckoned after the expiry of the extended time limit. 10. The abovesaid orders and directions are now passed in view of the submissions now made by all the parties in the WP(C) including the respondent officer. In the light of these aspects, the defect noted by the Registry need not be overruled, and since the one year period from the date of receipt of judgment would have fallen before the imposition of COVID lock down from 24.3.2020 onwards, it may not be right and proper for this Court to take cognizance in the Cont. Case (C) No. 1796/2020 in W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 & W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 ..11.. ## present Contempt petition. 11. The upshot of above discussion is that, the time limit stipulated for the compliance of directions in the judgment dated 12.2.2019 in WP(C).No.1999/2019 will stand extended as aforestated upto a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment/order by the respondent Special Tahasildar (Land Conservancy), Travancore Devaswom Board. In view of the applicability of Sec.20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the present contempt petition may not lie. However, there will be a fresh cause of action for initiating contempt proceedings if the directions in judgment in WP(C) are not complied with by the respondent officer, within the expiry period of extended time limit ordered as above. The abovesaid orders and directions for extension of time limit for compliance of the directions in the judgment is ordered by this Court in the matter in WP(C).No.1999/2019. 12. The technicalities of having an application by a party for extension of time need not be insisted in the facts of the case and resort to Suo Motu powers of this Court for extension of time limit, is only to be rendered so that the interest of administration of justice is Cont. Case (C) No. 1796/2020 in W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 & W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 ..12.. protected, and also the interest of respondent officer is also duly protected. 13. Registry may return back certified copy of Anx.A judgment produced in Contempt case to the counsel for the petitioner, if a request in that regard is made by him. The office of Advocate General will ensure that, certified copy of this common judgment/order is forwarded to the respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy) without any further delay. With these observations and directions, the above Contempt of Court case will stand dismissed and the time limit stipulated for compliance of directions in the above WP(C) will stand extended as above. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG Cont. Case (C) No. 1796/2020 in W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 & W.P. (C) No. 1999/2019 ..13.. ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).1999/2019 DATED 12.2.2019**