Kerala High Court
Firoz V vs Muhammed Afzal on 2 February, 2026
2026:KER:9418
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 13TH MAGHA, 1947
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3091 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2024 IN WA NO.1131 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:
FIROZ V
AGED 54 YEARS
SHAFNAS MANZIL, SIDDIQUE NAGAR,
NEAR SIDDIQUE MASJID, IRRIKUR , KANNUR,
KERALA, PIN - 670593
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ATUL SOHAN
SMT.R.REJI (ATTINGAL)
SMT.SREEJA SOHAN K.
SHRI.K.V.SOHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 MUHAMMED AFZAL
(SECRETARY, ULIKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT),
ULIKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VAYATHOOR,
ULIKKAL P.O, KANNUR, PIN - 670705
2 MUKRIRAKATH MUNEER
AGED 53 YEARS
POOKANDAM, MALAPATTAM AMSOM DESOM,
MALAPATTAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670631
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3091 OF 2025 2
2026:KER:9418
BY ADVS.
SRI.CIBI THOMAS
SRI.LIJIN THAMBAN
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3091 OF 2025 3
2026:KER:9418
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 02nd day of February, 2026) K. NATARAJAN.J This Contempt case is filed by the petitioner for willful disobedience of the direction of the judgment of this court in Writ Appeal No.1131/2024 dated 04.12.2024. The Judgment of this court at para 4 said to be violated, which reads as under:-
"4. As regards the numbering of the properties, if they are given sepa- rate numbers, parties can put them to use indivisibly. Counsel for the Panchayat rightly submits that unless there is a clarity as to which por- tion of the property the parties are entitled to, it is not possible for the Panchayat to carry out adjudicating of the issue which is to be done by the Civil Court. A civil suit is already pending and in the said civil suit, necessary directions can be sought, final or temporary as regards the numbering of the separate portions. Once such an order is issued by the Civil Court, temporary or final, the Panchayat will have to act as per the same and proceed."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent No. 1 gave permission to Respondent No. 2, and Respondent No. 2 opened two commercial shops through ten- ants and is running the business. He has produced photographs, thereby showing that Respondent No. 2 has committed con- tempt, and that Respondent No. 1 permitted Respondent No. 2's tenants to run the shops. Thereby, both of them have commit- CON.CASE(C) NO. 3091 OF 2025 4
2026:KER:9418 ted contempt of the judgment of this Court for initiating the framing of charges.
3. Per contra, the counsel for the 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter and submitted that the petitioner had already initiated a similar contempt petition against them in Contempt Case No. 483/2025. The same Bench which passed the judg- ment disposed of the contempt petition by making certain ob- servations. On the ground, Respondent No. 1 cancelled the li- cence issued to a tenant. It is further submitted by the counsel for Respondent No. 2 that subsequently the tenant challenged the cancellation of the licence by filing a writ petition, and the learned Single Judge of this Court granted a stay of the order of Respondent No. 1 cancelling the licence. The said writ petition is still pending, and there is only an interim order, and the parties can agitate the same before the Court. It is also contended that prior to passing the judgment by the learned Single Judge, the Tribunal permitted the Panchayath to assign the numbers. The same was challenged. Even the learned Single Judge stated that granting a partial number is not permissible and permitted the CON.CASE(C) NO. 3091 OF 2025 5 2026:KER:9418 remaining portion of the property, which was not contested by the contempt petitioner herein. Therefore, it is contended that the number given to Respondent No. 2 has not been cancelled by the Court. Certain observations made by the learned Single Judge against Respondent No. 2 were challenged before the Di- vision Bench in the writ appeal, wherein the writ appeal clarified the position with respect to assigning numbers. Therefore, it is contended that there is absolutely no contempt committed by Respondent No. 2.
4. The counsel further contended that a tenant was in- ducted and the premises were let out prior to the passing of the order by the learned Single Judge, and that another tenant is also running the business after obtaining a licence from the Mi- cro, Small and Medium Enterprises Authority (hereinafter re- ferred as MSME). It is contended that there is no need to obtain a licence from the Village Panchayath. Therefore, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.
5. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 1,appearing for the Panchayath, contended that they had already issued a CON.CASE(C) NO. 3091 OF 2025 6 2026:KER:9418 notice to the tenant on 17.12.2025 regarding the running of the business by another tenant.
6. Considering the same, one of the tenants under Re- spondent No. 2 is presently running the commercial business af- ter obtaining a stay order from the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 13419/2025.
7. The learned Single Judge of this Court, after consid- ering the judgment of the Division Bench and the order of an- other Single Judge in a different case, passed an interim order. The said case is still pending, and the petitioner can agitate the same before the said Bench if aggrieved by the order.
8. As regards the running of the business by another tenant after obtaining a licence under the MSME scheme, the first respondent Panchayat has already issued a show-cause no- tice and taken appropriate action. In view of the above, we have to refer the judgment delivered by the same Bench in another contempt case, which consist of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and another Hon'ble Judge, dated 21.03.2025, which reads as under:-
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3091 OF 2025 7
2026:KER:9418 "Heard Mr. K.V. Sohan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Cibi Thomas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Re- spondent Panchayat and Mr. Liju Thamban, learned counsel appear- ing for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
2. According to the Respondent Panchayat, remedial action has al- ready been taken and the licence has been cancelled.
3. As regards the implication of this order is concerned, if it affects the substantive rights of the parties, it is open to them to take neces- sary steps.
4.The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of."
9. Reading paragraph 3 of the judgment, the Division Bench of this Court categorically stated in another contempt pe- tition that if the order affects the substantive rights of the par- ties, they are at liberty to take the necessary steps. On perusal of the same, in the earlier contempt petition, the co-ordinate Bench which had actually passed the original judgment did not take any action against the respondents. On the other hand, the judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1131/2024 given di- rections with respect to paragraph 3, where a direction was is- sued to the Panchayath to take action against illegal construc- tion in accordance with law. Whereas, in paragraph 4, it is stated that after obtaining the number, the parties may use it indivisibly, and the number is required to be obtained from the Civil Court.
10. The counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that CON.CASE(C) NO. 3091 OF 2025 8 2026:KER:9418 he has filed an I.A. before the Civil Court and obtained permis- sion, and there were some observations made by the Civil Court have been challenged by filing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Based on the direction issued to the parties to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief if they have any substantial rights.
11. As regards the direction issued to the first respon- dent to take action against illegal construction, no action has been taken. However, no time limit was fixed by the Division Bench. In view of the above, at this stage, we cannot presume that there is prima facie material to show that contempt was committed by Respondent No. 2.
12. Though the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 seriously objected to the permission granted by the Civil Court in the interlocutory application filed by Respondent No. 2 and raised objections, no supporting documents were produced be- fore this Court.
13. Such being the case, this Court, in the contempt case, cannot interpret the orders of the Court for the purpose of CON.CASE(C) NO. 3091 OF 2025 9 2026:KER:9418 initiating any contempt proceedings. There is no clear direction for the parties as to whether they are required to obtain the numbers or not. It is only stated that they may approach the Civil Court for obtaining the assignment of the numbers. The civil case is still pending. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there is no prima facie material on record to show that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have committed contempt of the judgment.
Accordingly, this Contempt case is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. NATARAJAN JUDGE Sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN JUDGE vnk/-
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3091 OF 2025 10
2026:KER:9418 APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) NO. 3091 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CON.CASE(C) 483/2025 DATED 13.03.2025 Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CON.CASE(C) 483/2025 DATED 21.03.2025 Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED : 08-12- 2025 SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO:1 Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED : 09-12- 2025 SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO:1 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure-R2(a) True copy of the order dated 04.10.2023 in Appeal No. 91/2023 passed by the learned Local Self Government Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Annexure-R2(b) True copy of the order bearing No. 401054/BABC 06/GPO/2023-8080(3) dated 14.12.2023, along with English translation Annexure-R2(c) True copy of the order dated 13.11.2024 in I.A 2/2023 in O.S 108/2023 of the learned Sub Court, Kannur Annexure-R2(d) True copy Of the interim order dated 03.04.2025 in W.P(C) No, 13419/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A6 Copy of the Common Judgment dated 24.07.2024 in W.P.(C) Nos. 6219 of 2023 and 1880 of 2024.
Annexure A7 Photographs (Series-3 Images) taken on 30.01.2026 showing the continued contempt of exclusive occupancy and commercial functioning in the building without any orders.
Annexure R1(a) True copy of the communication No.6599555-2025 dated 17.12.2025 issued by the Secretary, Ulikkal Grama Panchayat