High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
P.K.M.KUTTY HAJI, S/O. KUNHALASSAN v. B.M.JAMAL - Con APP(C) No. 5 of 2007(S)  RD-KL 10010 (11 June 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCon APP(C) No. 5 of 2007(S)
1. P.K.M.KUTTY HAJI, S/O. KUNHALASSAN,
2. K.V.KUNHIMOHAMMED HAJI,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.ABDUL KAREEM
For Respondent :SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR, SC, WAKF BOARD
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.Contempt Appeal No.5 of 2007
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2007.
H.L.DATTU, C.J. The petitioner was before this court in W.P.(C) No.37621/04. His main prayer in the writ petition was to issue an appropriate direction to the 2nd respondent interdicting him from constructing a building in the burial ground of a public trust. His other grievance was that he had already filed an appropriate petition before the Kerala Wakf Board, Ernakulam and the same is not yet disposed of by them, in spite of long lapse of time. The learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by order dated 28.12.2004 and in that, has directed that the 2nd respondent shall not complete the construction of the building till the first respondent viz., the Kerala Wakf Board decides the petition filed by the petitioner, Ext.P2.
2. Alleging that the 2nd respondent, in spite of the directions issued by this court in the aforesaid writ petition, has completed the construction, the petitioner was before this court in C.C.No.1532/06. The learned Judge has disposed of the contempt petition by order dated 7.3.2007 and in that, has directed the Wakf Contempt Appeal No.5 of 2007 Board to consider the petition Ext.P2, which is numbered as O.P.No.122/04, as expeditiously as possible.
3. Aggrieved by the said direction issued in the contempt petition, the complainant is before us in this appeal.
4. In this appeal, we are not deciding the maintainability or otherwise of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders passed in yet another contempt petition. We leave this issue open for a decision in appropriate case.
5. The only direction that was issued by this court, while disposing of the writ petition was, that the 2nd respondent shall not put up any further construction till Ext.P2 petition, filed by the petitioner pending before the Wakf Board, is disposed of.
6. Alleging that the 2nd respondent has completed the construction, the petitioner has filed this contempt petition. In the contempt petition so filed, the petitioner has not produced any material even to suggest that after the disposal of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent has made any further construction in the disputed property. Keeping this aspect in view, the learned Judge has disposed of the contempt petition directing the Board to decide the petition filed by the petitioner as early as possible. Contempt Appeal No.5 of 2007 In our view, the learned single Judge has not committed any error whatsoever and therefore, no interference is called for in the appeal filed against the said order. This contempt appeal is dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- H.L.DATTU CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- K.T.SANKARAN
JUDGEsk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.