Kerala High Court
Suo Motu vs Sreedevi on 24 October, 2016
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/30TH JYAISHTA, 1939
Con.Case(C).No. 824 of 2017 (S)
--------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.MP NO.7060/2016 of JFCM-III, KOTTAYAM DATED
24.10.2016
PETITIONER:
----------
SUO MOTU
REFERANCE MADE BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-
III, KOTTAYAM FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDERD DATED 24.10.2016
IN CRL.MP. NO. 7060/2016 OF THAT COURT.
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
SREEDEVI
(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
KOTTAYAM,
RESIDING AT SANKARAMANA(KARUMALLANKALAYIL) HOUSE
ATHIRAMPUZHA.P.O. KOTAYAM
R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
COC NO.824/2017
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE-I LETTER NO.S-6314/2016 DATED 8/11/2016 FROM THE
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,KOTTAYAM FORWARDING THE
LETTER NO.2041/2016 DATED 8/11/2016 OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,KOTTAYAM
SUBMITTING REFERENCE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT
ANNEXURE-II LETTER DTD 22/10/2016 OF THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
KOTTAYAM TO THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND THE REPORT
SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR BEFORE THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III KOTTAYAM
AND THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
ANNEXURE-III EXPLANATION DTD 22.10.2016 SUBMITTED BY DEPUTY
TAHSILDAR REGARDING THE DELAY IN SUBMITTING REPORT
IN CRL.M.P.7060/2016 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-III, KOTTAYAM AND THE ENGLISH
TRANSLATION
ANNEXURE-IV ORDER DATED 24.10.2016 IN CRL.M.P. NO.7060/2016 OF
THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,
KOTTAYAM
ANNEXURE-V AFFIDAVIT DTD 25.10.2016 OF SRI.SHAJIMON N.V.,
PETITIONER IN CRL.MP 7060/16 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, KOTTAYAM AND THE
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
ANNEXURE-VI AFFIDAVIT DTD 25.10.2016 OF THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
KOTTAYAM IN CRL MP 7060/16 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, KOTTAYAM AND THE
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
ANNEXURE-VII AFFIDAVIT DTD 26.10.2016 OF SRI.SHAJIMON N.V.,
PETITIONER IN CRL.MP 7060/16 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, KOTTAYAM AND THE
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
ANNEXURE-VIII SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD 2.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, KOTTAYAM
IN CRL MP 7060/16 TO THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM
ANNEXURE-IX REPLY DTD 1.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY
TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-III, KOTTAYAM AND THE ENGLISH
TRANSLATION ALONG WITH OM NO.1907/16 DTD 25/10/16
OF THE JFCM COURT-III, KOTTAYAM
ANNEXURE-X ORDER DATED 2.11.2016 IN CRL.MP NO.7060/16 PASSED
BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,
KOTTAYAM AFTER CONDUCTING ENQUIRY, ALONG WITH THE
REFERENCE FOR INITIATING CONTEMPT OF COURT AND
DRAFT CHARGES AGAINST SMT.SREEDEVI, DEPUTY
TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM AND ADDITIONAL COPIES OF
ANNEXURES II TO X
ANNEXURE-XI OBSERVATION MADE BY THE THEN HONOURABLE JUDGE-IN-
CHARGE OF KOTTAYAM DISTRICT ON 28.11.2016
ANNEXURE-XII OFFICE NOTE AND ORDER DATED 1.2.2017 OF THE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DIRECTING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT (CIVIL)
CASE
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
VPS PS TO JUDGE
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J. &
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.
---------------------------------------
Contempt Case (C) No.824 OF 2017
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 20thday of June, 2017
JUDGMENT
--------------
Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.
1.We have heard the learned Government Pleader for the State and perused the records.
2.In our view, this is not a case warranting initiation of contempt proceedings. It is apparent that there was a communication gap between the court and the Deputy Tahsildar. The Deputy Tahsildar admits that she was heading the inspecting squad. But it is clear that the mahazar (seizure list) was drawn up by the Village Officer showing seizure of the vehicle. As required under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, upon seizure, the matter has to be reported to the District Collector, who is the competent authority in this regard.
3. Thereafter, the owner of the vehicle got an order from the Judicial Magistrate for release of the vehicle. But he informed COC No.824/2017 2 the court that it was the Deputy Tahsildar, who seized the vehicle. The Deputy Tahsildar informed the court that consequent to the seizure of the vehicle, the matter had been reported to the District Collector and as such, she could not release the same. On the next day when a detailed report was filed, the Deputy Tahsildar took the stand that seizure was in fact effected by the Village Officer and the matter having been reported to the District Collector, the Deputy Tahsildar have nothing to do with it and there could be no release of the vehicle. It is this what has enraged the Magistrate. What annoyed it further was that the Magistrate required a report to be filed. Due to the late communication of the order, the report could not be filed in time, much to the annoyance of the Magistrate. Considering the aforesaid, the Magistrate was of the view that the Deputy Tahsildar has misled the court and deliberately disobeyed the orders with regard to the release of the vehicle.
4.We are of the considered view that once the vehicle was seized either by the Deputy Tahsildar or by the Village Officer and the matter was reported to the District Collector, vehicle would be COC No.824/2017 3 deemed to be in custody of the District Collector and as such, the Magistrate should have corrected the earlier order and directed the District Collector to release the same or directed the owner to approach the District Collector for the release of the same. The Deputy Tahsildar, under such circumstances, could not be pressurized to release the vehicle. In the aforesaid facts we see no contempt being made out. This contempt case is accordingly closed.
Sd/-
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE vps