Alikutty Joseph vs Sreeram Sambasiva Rao
2021 Latest Caselaw 6871 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

        FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942

              Con.Case(C).No.439 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 12776/2017

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12776/2017(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) NO. 12776/2017:

               ALIKUTTY JOSEPH,
               PALATHINKAL HOUSE, KODIYATHOOR, THOTTUMUKKAM P.O.,
               KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

               BY ADV. SRI.BINU PAUL

RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 12776/2017:

               SREERAM SAMBASIVA RAO,
               AGED 34 YEARS
               FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT
               COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE-673 001.

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




      THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
      ON 26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 C.O.(C) No. 439/2019
in W.P.(C) No. 12776/2017                    :2:



              Dated this the 26th day of February, 2021.

                               JUDGMENT

This Contempt Case is filed complaining that the directives

contained in the judgment dated 22.01.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 12776 of

2017 is not complied with.

2. In fact, the writ petition was disposed of making the interim

order dated 04.10.2017 absolute, which reads thus:

"Post after two weeks. In the meanwhile, the first respondent shall ensure that quarrying is not conducted by the eleventh respondent otherwise than in accordance with the terms of Ext.P5 Environmental Clearance."

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

Senior Government Pleader has made his submissions on the basis of

the affidavit filed by the respondent, from where I find that later W.P.

(C) No. 9452 of 2019 was filed by the son of the petitioner and in that

writ petition various directions were issued. A commission was

appointed and the slurry dumped in the yard in violation of the terms

and conditions was removed.

4. Taking into account the said aspects put forth by the

petitioner, I am satisfied that the subject issue is being regulated in a

new writ petition specified above.

C.O.(C) No. 439/2019

5. In that view of the matter, I do not think it is proper to

proceed with the contempt case any further. If at all there is any

violation, it is only on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in

the new writ petition specified above.

Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed, leaving open the

liberty of the petitioner and his son to take up all the contentions in the

new writ petition.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv