Abdul Majeed vs K.R.Jyothilal
2021 Latest Caselaw 6111 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

           FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942

              Con.Case(C).No.1052 OF 2017(S) IN WP(C). 14242/2017

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.04.2017 IN WPC 14242/2017 DATED 21-04-
                   2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

                ABDUL MAJEED
                S/O. KUNHABDULLA HAJI,KOLIYATH HOUSE, NOCHAD,CHENOLI PO.,
                PERAMBRA, KOZHIKKODE

                BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

       1        K.R.JYOTHILAL
                (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER )
                SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
                DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

       2        SRI.U.V.JOSE
                (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER )
                DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKKODE

       3        SRI. N.P.RATHEESH
                (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER )
                VILLAGE OFFICER, KAYANNA VILLAGE OFFICE, KAYANNA.

                R1 BY SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER




     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
     19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                 Dated this the 19th day of February, 2021.

                                JUDGMENT

This Contempt Case is filed complaining that the directives

contained in the judgment dated 21.04.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 14242

of 2017 is not complied with.

2. A counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent

explaining the circumstances under which the directives contained in

the judgment was not being complied with. A reply affidavit is also

filed by the petitioner.

3. However, today, when the matter is taken up for

consideration, learned Government Pleader Sri. Surin George Ipe,

has handed over a copy of the order No. G.O.(Rt.) No.

3584/2017/RD dated 11.08.2017, from where I am satisfied that

the Additional Secretary to Government has passed orders in

revision in compliance with the directions contained in the

judgment.

In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to proceed

with the contempt case any further. Accordingly, this Contempt

Case is closed. However, I make it clear that the questions of fact

and law with respect to the impugned order are left open.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv