IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
CON.CASE(C) NO. 668 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20242/2020 DATED 2.11.2021
PETITIONER:
THAZHE VEETTIL RAJAN, AGED 51 YEARS
PERINGOME AMSOM, PERINTHATTA DESOM,
MAPPADICHAL, PURAKKUNNU P.O.,
PAYYANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670306
BY ADV E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI
RESPONDENTS:
1 SRI. T.P. SUJESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERAMAM VILLAGE,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670306
2 SRI. K. BALAGOPALAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
THE TAHSILDAR, PAYYANNUR TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307
SMT PARVATHY K-GP
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
COC 668/22
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges that no orders have been issued by the respondents, even though the time frame in the judgment in WP(C)No.20242/2020 has expired.
2. However, the learned Government Pleader - Smt.Parvathy K., submitted that the afore assertions are not correct and that the respondents have issued an order dated 01.06.2022, in implicit compliance with the directions of this Court; and that a copy of the same has been produced along with a memo dated 24.06.2022.
3. Sri.E.N.Vishnu Namboodiri - learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the new order issued by the respondents is also in blatant violation of the directions of this Court because, he had been ordered to effect transfer of Registry in favour of his client, if there are no legal impediments. He argued that, going by the new order, the Authority has merely cited certain factual reasons why his client cannot be granted the benefit; and thus prayed that further action under the Contempt COC 668/22 3 of Courts Act be continued against him.
4. Even when I hear the learned counsel for the petitioner on the afore lines, I am afraid that I cannot enter into the merits of the new order dated 01.06.2022 issued by the respondents because, the question whether the reasons stated therein are valid or otherwise, cannot be assessed while exercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioner will certainly have to challenge the said order appropriately.
Resultantly, leaving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the new order appositely - for which purpose, all his contentions are left open - I close this Contempt Case without any further orders.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
COC 668/22
4
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 668/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF WILL DEED DATED 19.1.1989
EXECUTED BY THE FATHER OF PETITIONER LATE AMBU IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 19.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P (C) NO. 20242/2020 DATED 2.11.2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 15.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER