K.K.Thankachan vs S. Suhas
2021 Latest Caselaw 7561 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

          Con.Case(C).No.1878 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 13245/2018

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13245/2018(E) DATED 05.11.2019


PETITIONER/2ND PETITIONER IN WPC:

               K.K.THANKACHAN, AGED 44 YEARS
               S/O.KUNJEPPU, RESIDING AT KANDAKATTU HOUSE,
               THOTTARA, KULLIETTIKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 317.

               BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN JOSEPH

RESPONDENTS:

      1        S. SUHAS, IAS,
               RESIDENCE AT COLLECTORS RESIDENCE,
               CLUB ROAD, ERNAKULAM, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU,
               ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030.

      2        HAREES RASHEEDH,
               RESIDENCE AT BASTIAN BUNGALOW,
               NAPIER STREET, FORTKOCHI,
               THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI,
               COCHIN, PIN-682 001.


               SRI.JESTIN MATHEW-GP

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 COC 1878/20
                                       2



                                    JUDGMENT

This COC has been filed alleging that, in

spite of the directions in the judgment, no

action has been taken by the respondents in

terms of Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation

of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.

2. The learned Government Pleader -

Sri.Justin Mathew, submitted that as per the

judgment, the 1st respondent - who is the

District Collector, is to take final action

under Section 13 of the Act within a period of

three months after the report from the Revenue

Divisional Officer (RDO) was received by him.

He added that the report from the RDO was

received by the 1st respondent only on

10.02.2021 and that final action as directed

by this Court will be completed within a

period of three months thereafter.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner

- Sri.Shaijan Joseph, however, submitted that COC 1878/20

the delay is not at the hands of the 1 st

respondent but that the 2nd respondent-RDO was

expected to file the report before the 1st

respondent within a period of two months from

the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

He submitted that instead of this, the 2nd

respondent appears to have taken more than a

year and two months in doing so. He thus

prayed that necessary action against the 2nd

respondent be taken by this Court.

4. Even when I find substantial force in

the submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioner, I deem it appropriate not to take

any action at this stage, since the learned

Government Pleader submits that the 1st

respondent will complete the proceedings at

the earliest but not later than 10.05.2021, as

ordered by this Court in the judgment.

In the afore circumstances, without

entering into the merits of the rival COC 1878/20

contentions of the parties at this stage, I

close this COC recording the afore submissions

of the learned Government Pleader; however,

leaving liberty to the petitioner to approach

this Court with a fresh COC, if the afore

undertaking is also not complied with.

Sd/-

                                       DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
      RR                                      JUDGE
 COC 1878/20




                           APPENDIX
      PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

      ANNEXURE A1       CERTIFIED OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

05.11.2019 IN WPC NO.13245 OF 2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 25TH NOVEMBER 2019 ALONG WITH ACCEPTANCE RECEIPT.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 25TH NOVEMBER 2019 ALONG WITH ACCEPTANCE RECEIPT.