C.A.ABDUL HAKEEM Vs. D.SAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment dated 20.03.2013 in W.P. (C) No.6613 of 2013, this contempt petition has been filed. Said judgment is extracted hereunder:

(2.) Short facts leading to the contempt are as follows: Petitioner is the owner in possession of 75.80 ares of landed property, which is on the eastern side of the pipeline road in Ward No.33 of Trikkakara Municipality. According to him, there are two culverts; one on the northern side and another on the southern side; both on the north of Pappu Mestri Junction. Respondent Municipality has started construction of a drainage through the eastern side of pipeline road from north. According to the petitioner, if the construction reaches the south culvert, waste water and other water would flow into his property and the same would get inundated. Petitioner, in such circumstances, filed the writ petition, wherein it was stated that if the drainage is extended and connected to Edappally Thodu, water would not flow into his property and thereby, his grievance would be redressed. Respondents have filed statement in the W.P.(C) stating that drainage will be extended to Edappally Thodu and there was no intention to drive the water into petitioner's property. It is also stated that construction of drainage will be completed without any delay. Recording the version/submission, writ petition was closed by judgment dated 20.03.202013. Eleven months are already over. The drainage has not been extended to Edappally Thodu as agreed by the respondents in the judgment till date. According to the petitioner, the inaction on the part of the respondents amounts to deliberate disobedience and wilful violation.

(3.) The then Secretary of Thrikkakara Municipality, respondent No.1, has filed a counter affidavit contending, inter alia, that W.P.(C) No.6613 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner suppressing the material facts. The grievance voiced in the writ petition is that Municipality is constructing a drainage which, in turn, would result in accumulation of waste water from 'Apple Flats' in the petitioner's property. The writ petition was filed merely on apprehension that the construction of aforesaid flats is not yet completed and nobody is occupying the same. Apart from that, the aforesaid flat is constructed in petitioner's own property under a joint venture agreement. The 1st respondent filed a detailed statement in the writ petition explaining the true state of affairs and on the basis of the contentions in the statement, writ court disposed of the writ petition by judgment dated 20.03.2013 recording the submission made by Municipality as well as the 2 nd respondent. Municipality submitted before the writ court that people in the locality approached it for constructing a drainage to avoid water logging. Hence, the Municipality has decided to construct drainage in two phases so as to alleviate the problem of water logging. It was further contended that they had no intention to construct drainage so as to lead waste water into the property of the petitioner.