The captioned contempt case has been filed alleging wilful disobedience with the directions of this Court in judgment dated 18.8.2014 in W.P.(C).No.14963 of 2014. As per the said judgment, this Court disposed of the writ petition taking note of the directions in the judgment in W.P.(C).No.27194 of 2013. That writ petition moved by one of the tenants of the petitioner herein was disposed of with certain conditions as hereunder:-
1. The Panchayat shall convene a meeting of the trade unions of autorickshaw workers and attempt for an amicable solution of the issue relating to the right of access of the petitioner, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
2. If the Panchayat is not able to arrive at an amicable solution, a specific request shall be made by the panchayat to the fourth respondent to implement Ext.P3 decision, as provided for under Section 252(1)(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, within a period of three weeks from today.
3. If a request is received from the panchayat as directed above, the 4th respondent shall ensure implementation of Ext.P3 decision.”
2. Obviously, as per the said judgment, the panchayat was directed to conduct a meeting of the trade unions of autorickshaw drivers and to arrive at an amicable settlement of the grievances relating alleged parking of the autorickshaws. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner herein is the owner of the shopping complex in which the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.27194 of 2013 is conducting business, as per judgment dated 18.8.2014 in W.P.(C).No.14963 of 2014, the petitioner was also directed to be afforded with an opportunity of hearing in the meeting to be scheduled pursuant to the directions in the said judgment. It was also made clear that in case of failure to arrive at an amicable solution, the panchayat and second respondent should take appropriate steps, in terms of aforesaid direction Nos. 2 and 3, in the case of the petitioner as well. The captioned contempt case has been filed alleging that the directions in the aforesaid judgment have been willfully flouted and in the meeting, amicable settlement could not be arrived at and even then, no steps to extent the benefit in terms of direction Nos.2 and 3 to the petitioner has been taken.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. It is specifically stated therein that pursuant to the judgment dated 18.8.2014 in W.P.(C).No.14963 of 2014, the petitioner was called for attending the meeting convened pursuant to the said judgment and the brother of the petitioner attended the meeting as his representative. Evidently, pursuant to the said meeting, a decision was taken to allow parking of the vehicles in such a manner to avoid any hindrance to the two entrances to the building in question viz., Muttithottathil Building belonging to the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no other access to the building except through those two entrances. It is thus obvious that in places where entrances are provided to the building in question the respondent has taken steps to ensure that no vehicles are parked in such a manner to cause hindrance to the free access to the building. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that parking of autorickshaws in other places wherein no access is provided also creates nuisance to the smooth functioning of the shops. In other words, it is his contention that on parking of autorickshaws in the said place, persons are unwilling to take up the vacant shops on lease. I am afraid the said reason cannot be a ground for this Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent when it is evident that respondent has already initiated steps to ensure that no hindrance whatsoever is caused in those places where entrances are provided taking into account the directions in the judgments. The petitioner cannot be heard to contend that contempt proceedings are liable to be initiated against the respondent for not taking steps to remove autorickshaws which are being parked in the places where no access is provided to the shop in question. The panchayat is also having duty to provide parking place to autorickshaws in such a manner as to cause any inconvenience to the free flow of traffic and also avoid any hindrance to the access to the building in question. Steps now taken by the respondent obviously would safeguard the interest of the public as availability of autorickshaws would only augment their conveyance facility and at the same time as the parking of the autorickshaws are regulated in the aforesaid manner it would not cause any hindrance to the access to the shops. In such circumstances, no prima facie case of any violation of the directions of this Court in judgment dated 18.8.2014 in W.P.(C).No.14963 of 2014 has been made out against the respondent and hence, this contempt case is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010