Charly K Mani vs Vinod Chandran
2021 Latest Caselaw 2392 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942

         Con.Case(C).No.2144 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 20854/2018

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20854/2018(F) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

             CHARLY K MANI, AGED 53 YEARS
             S/O MANI, KARAMVELIL HOUSE, LALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL
             TALUK, KOTTAYAM-686 575.

             BY ADV. SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC

RESPONDENT/4TH RESPONDENT:

             VINOD CHANDRAN
             (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
             VILLAGE OFFICER MEMBER OF LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING
             COMMITTEE, LALAM VILLAGE, PALA-686 575.

             SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL - SR.GP

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case(C).No.2144 OF 2020

                                       2


                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of January 2021

This contempt case has been filed on the allegation that

the respondent has not complied with the directions in

Annexure I as also in Annexure III judgments. The petitioner,

however, concedes that the concerned Revenue Divisional

Officer (RDO) has already passed orders in terms of Annexure

III judgment of this Court; but that the respondent herein, who

is the Village Officer, has not made consequential corrections,

as had earlier been directed in Annexure I judgment.

2. Even when I hear the learned counsel for the

petitioner, it is indubitable that I can take action only for

violation of the directions in Annexure III Judgment. while the

petitioner would have to approach the concerned learned

Judge, if any violations in Annexure I is to be found.

3. However, I do not think that even this would be

necessary in this case because all that the petitioner requires

is that the respondent herein make consequential

incorporations in the revenue records, resultant to the order

now passed by the RDO in terms of Annexure III judgment.

This order of the RDO is available as Annexure II and I am, Con.Case(C).No.2144 OF 2020

therefore, of the view that it will only be in the interests of

justice that the respondent be given time to complete the

process consequent to it.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader also affirms

that the respondent herein will take necessary action pursuant

to Annexure II order at the earliest and prays that this

contempt case, therefore, be closed.

In the afore circumstances, I dispose of this contempt

case, directing the respondent herein to make consequential

changes in the revenue records, as ordered by the RDO

through Annexure II order, as expeditiously as is possible, but

not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

Needless to say, the petitioner will be at liberty to

approach this Court again, if these directions are also not

complied with.

                                      Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    STU                                        JUDGE
 Con.Case(C).No.2144 OF 2020





                                APPENDIX
    PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

    ANNEXURE 1        TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO
                      33394/2017 DATED 9.11.2017

    ANNEXURE 11       TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY RDO, PALA
                      DATED 31.3.2018

ANNEXURE 111 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 20854/2018 DATED 19.12.2019

ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RDO, PALA DATED 13.5.2020

ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 9.11.2017