Kerala High Court
For Information Purpose Only vs By Advocates M/S T.P.Pradeep on 19 February, 2021
Con.Case(C) 133/2021 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
Friday,the 19th day of February 2021/30th Magha,1942
Contempt Case(Civil) No.133/2021(S) in WP(C) No.8267/2020
For information purpose only
PETITIONER/PETITIONER
C.A. KURIAN,AGED 81 YEARS,S/O.ABRAHAM
CHATHANKERIL PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM P.O.,
NIRANAM,THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 621.
BY ADVOCATES M/S T.P.PRADEEP,AJAI JOHN, MINIKUMARY M.V.
AND P.K.SATHEES KUMAR
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT
CHETAN KUMAR MEENA I.A.S
SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (R.D.O),
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT-689 101.
This Contempt of Court Case(Civil) having come up for orders
on 19/02/2021, the Court on the same day passed the following:
PTO
Con.Case(C) 133/2021 2/4
ALEXANDER THOMAS
----------------------------------------------------
Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.133 of 2021
[arising out of judgment dated 17.03.2020
in W.P.(C) No.8267/2020]
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2021
For information purpose only
ORDER
The respondent officer (Revenue Divisional Officer) is given 10 days' time as
last chance to pass revised orders so as to delete the adverse conditions in
Annexure B proceedings dated 01.10.2020, issued under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala
Land Utilization Order (KLU Order), 1967 and also to ensure that the revised
order passed is an unconditional grant of statutory permission under Rule 6(2) of
the KLU Order and in strict compliance with the directions in Annexure A
judgment dated 17.03.2020 in W.P.(C) No.8267/2020 in letter and spirit. The
respondent officer will show cause as to why action should not taken against him
in for showing the defiance in issuing Annexure B proceedings dated 01.10.2020
without even referring or adverting to even about the very existence of Annexure
A judgment rendered on 17.03.2020 in W.P.(C) No.8267/2020. The respondent
officer will also show cause as to why this Court should not take the view that the
abovesaid conduct on his part is one which is unbecoming of a responsible
Government servant, who has minimal commitment to rule of law and
constitutionalism and also as to why personal costs shall not be imposed on him
for the blatant violations of the directions contained in Annexure A judgment.
2. If the respondent officer does not take necessary remedial measures as
abovestated, then this Court will be constrained to take a very serious view of the
matter and in that case this Court may even consider imposing exemplary cost,
which shall be fully paid by the respondent officer from his personal fund and not
even a single paise thereof can be appropriated from the public exchequer.
3. If the respondent officer does not comply with the aforesaid directions before
Con.Case(C) 133/2021 3/4
the next posting date, then he shall be personally present before this Court on the
next posting date.
List the case on 12.03.2021 for reporting compliance of the directions in
Annexure A judgment, as aforestated.
H/o copies of this order to both sides.
For information
Sd/- purpose only
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Skk
20/02/21
/true copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Con.Case(C) 133/2021 4/4
ANNEXURE A - CERTIFIED COY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
17.3.2020 IN WPC NO.8267 OF 2020 ON THE
FILES OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
ANNEXURE B - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.10.2020 OF
SUB- COLLECTOR.
For information purpose only
