Chinnu Mariam Thankachan vs Pushya Raj
2021 Latest Caselaw 13731 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943
                        CON.CASE(C) NO. 2080 OF 2020
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29661/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:
           CHINNU MARIAM THANKACHAN
           AGED 33 YEARS
           W/O. ROSHAN THOMAS, APARTMENT NO.7D, JERUSALEM
           RESIDENCY, BLOSSOM, COCHIN ROAD, ELAMKULAM, PIN-682
           020.

             BY ADVS.
             VIJU ABRAHAM
             SRI.ALBERT V.JOHN
             SMT.VARNA MANOJ
             SHRI.SUNNY JOSEPH


RESPONDENTS:
     1     PUSHYA RAJ
           AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
           AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CHERANELLOOR-682 034.

    2        DILEEP
             AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
             PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AND CONVENER, DISTRICT
             LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 030.

    3        HAARIS RASHEED
             AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
             REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT COCHIN-682 001.

             BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

             SRI. MUHAMMED ANSAR- SPL.GP


     THIS    CONTEMPT    OF   COURT    CASE     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 2080 OF 2020
                                    2

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner alleges that the directions of this Court in the

judgment dated 16.12.2019 in WP(C) No.29661/2019 have been

flagrantly violated by the respondents.

2. Noticing the afore allegations of the petitioner, I had,

on 10.02.2021 - when this matter was considered earlier, allowed

the learned Special Government Pleader time to enable the

respondents to decide whether a new order requires to be issued

because it was the petitioner's specific case that Annexure 7 order

was not in conformity with the spirit of the judgment.

3. Today, when this matter was called, the learned Special

Government Pleader - Sri.Mohammed Anzar, submitted that

respondents have now issued a fresh order; and that same has

been produced before this Court along with a memo.

4. However, Sri.Biju Abraham submitted that even the

order now issued is not in conformity with the judgment and

prayed that respondents be proceeded appropriately in this case. CON.CASE(C) NO. 2080 OF 2020

I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the submissions of

Sri.Biju Abraham because, if the petitioner has any cause against

the new order issued by the respondents, then he must challenge it

appropriately, rather than pursue this Contempt case.

In the afore circumstances, without entering into the merits

of the new order stated to have been issued by the respondents, I

close this contempt case, however, leaving full liberty to the

petitioner to challenge the said order appropriately.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/02/07/2021 CON.CASE(C) NO. 2080 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 2080/2020

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.30561/2018.

ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE.

ANNEXURE 3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.29661/2019 DATED 16.12.2019.

ANNEXURE 4 CONTEMPT NOTICE DATED 22.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF ARTUMENT NOTE DATED 16.9.2020.

ANNEXURE 6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.4.2012 ISSUED BY THE G.C.D.A

ANNEXURE 7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE