IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024/14TH KARTHIKA, 1946 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1489 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 14.09.2023 IN DBP NO.28 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

M.N.JAYARAM AGED 50 YEARS S/O. LATE RADHA VARASSIAR, PISHARIKOVIL WARRIAM, EROOR SOUTH P.O, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682306.

BY ADVS.

P.V.JAYACHANDRAN VENUGOPALAN MENON RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

BINDU AGED 51 YEARS WIFE OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY COCHIN DEVASWAM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR, PIN – 680001.

SRI. K. P. SUDHEER, SC, CDB THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 22.10.2024, THE COURT ON 05.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ANIL K. NARENDRAN & P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Con.Case (C) No.1489 of 2024 -----------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2024

JUDGMENT

P .G.Ajithkumar, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16113 of 2014, who also is the complainant in DBP No.28 of 2023, has filed this contempt of court case alleging that the respondent wilfully disobeyed the directions in Annexure A1 order and Annexure A2 judgment insofar as the direction directing the respondent to provide an alternative pathway to the petitioner along the properties of Pisharikovil Temple.

2. The respondent filed an affidavit maintaining that the directions contained in Annexure A1 order and Annexure A2 judgment were complied with in letter and spirit and there was no disobedience on the part of the respondent. The respondent has produced Annexures R1(a) to R1(h) along with the affidavit.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board for the respondent.

4. Annexure A2 is the judgment in W.P.(C) No.16113 of 2014. The directions in Annexure A2 are as follows:

“12. In the said circumstance, the respondents 4 to 8 are set at liberty to move the Devaswom Board by filing an application to make available of the alternative land as mentioned above for their access, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, upon which the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the Devaswom Board after hearing the said respondents within a further period of three months thereafter. If the Devaswom Board decides to permit the respondents 4 to 8 to make use of alternative land as aforesaid, it will be subject to the condition that the existing right/claim with regard to the entry through the Northern gate of the Temple and to pass through the Western gate will stand forfeited.

The writ petition stands disposed of, as nothing else remains to be considered in this writ petition.”

5. The petitioner submitted complaints before the learned Ombudsman for Cochin Devaswom Board alleging that directions in the said judgment were not complied with and the petitioner was not provided with a pathway in terms of the directions. The learned Ombudsman after conducting necessary enquiry in the matter submitted report No.38 of 2022, based on which DBP No.28 of 2023 was initiated. Annexure A1 is the order in that DBP. The operative part of the directions in Annexure A1 are the following:

“10. In the light of the direction by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.16113 of 2014, it is obligatory on the part of the Cochin Devaswom Board to take effective steps to resume possession of the Temple property, which is trespassed upon and, if feasible, to provide an alternative pathway to respondent Nos.4 to 8 therein. What shall be the width of the pathway provided is a matter which has to be decided by the Cochin Devaswom Board. Till such time, the right of respondent Nos.4 to 8 in the said Writ Petition to use the Temple property for their access to their respective residences, shall continue, undo