Kerala High Court
Noufal K.M vs Manoj Chandran on 20 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.1922 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 31921/2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31921/2019(M) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/WRIT PETITIONER:
NOUFAL K.M.
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. LATE K M MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT KANIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PERUMBAIKODE, S.H MOUNT P.O NATTASSERY, KOTTAYAM 686 006
BY ADVS.
SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA
SRI.GEORGIE JOHNY
SMT.ANITA ANN GEORGE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1:
MANOJ CHANDRAN
(AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
SECRETARY, THE ARPOOKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VILLOONNI P.O,
ARPOOKKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 008
BY SHRI. BLAZE K.JOSE, SC
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No.1922 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 31921/2019
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in this Contempt of Court Case alleges
that even though this Court had directed the respondent to
take up the representation and dispose it of as regards his
claim for rehabilitation as ordered earlier by this Court, no
action has been taken until now. He, therefore, prays that
the respondent be proceeded against under the provisions of
the Contempt of Court Act appropriately.
2. However, Sri.Blaze K. George, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent, refuted the submissions of
Sri.Gilbert George Correya - learned counsel for the
petitioner, by saying that the petitioner's brother,
Sri.P.M.Nazeer, has already been rehabilitated and that an
agreement has been entered into with him by the
respondent. He submitted that the petitioner was not among
the list of persons, eligible to be rehabilitated, as forwarded
to the respondent by the District Collector and therefore,
that he cannot have any independent claim.
3. On hearing Sri.Blaze K. George as afore,
Sri.Gilbert George Correya, submitted that his client's case is
Con.Case(C).No.1922 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 31921/2019
built on the rights of Sri.P.M.Nazeer, because he has
relinquished such rights in favour of his client -
Sri.K.M.Noufal. Sri.Gilbert George Correya, therefore,
prayed that the respondent be directed to assign the rights
of Sri.P.M.Nazeer in his client's name.
4. Sri.Blaze K. George, however, submitted that the
petitioner can only rightfully seek that his brother,
Sri.P.M.Nazeer be rehabilitated, but whether such rights can
be assigned to him are issues which may not be considered
at this stage, since it requires assessment of factual and
legal factors. He, therefore, prayed that this Contempt Case
be closed.
5. I find some force in the submissions of Sri.Blaze K.
George, because once Sri.P.M.Nazeer is rehabilitated, the
petitioner, Sri.K.M.Noufal cannot seek any independent right
in his own name. At the best, he can only seek that the shop
room allotted to Sri.P.M.Nazeer be assigned to him, but this
will depend upon whether the law would permit so.
In the afore circumstances, recording the submissions
of Sri.Blaze K. George that Sri.P.M.Nazeer, the brother of
Con.Case(C).No.1922 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 31921/2019
the petitioner, has been allotted a shop room and that an
agreement has already been entered into with him, I close
this Contempt Case, leaving open all contentions of the
petitioner with respect to the assignment of the said shop
room in his favour to be pursued as he may be advised in
future.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
rp JUDGE
Con.Case(C).No.1922 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 31921/2019
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.
31921/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 26-11-2019
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER RTI
DATED 10-07-2020
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED 19-10-2019
