Kerala High Court
Saritha Soman vs S Suhas on 8 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1007 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21204/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:
SARITHA SOMAN
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O SAJI, ANTHIKKAADU HOUSE, CHIRAKKAKOM,
VARAPPUZHA P.O.ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 517, REPRESENTED
BY HER HUSBAND & POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. SAJI
A.S, S/O SADANANDAN, AGED 46, RESIDING AT
ANTHIKKADU HOUSE, CHIRAKKAKOM, VARAPPUZHA P.O,
ERNAKULAM-683 517.
BY ADVS.
A.S.DILEEP
P.BINOD
SUSEELA DILEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 S SUHAS
(AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ERNAKULAM
COLLECTORATE AND CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAAD,
ERNAKULAM-682 030.
*ADDL. R2 MR.JAFER MALIK
(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER), DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE AND CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682030.
(Additional R2 impleaded as per Order dated
8.9.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in COC No.1007 of
2021)
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CON.CASE(C)NO.1007 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court
alleging that the directions in the judgment dated
09.03.2021, as also in the order in Contempt Case
No.259 of 2020, have not been complied with by the
respondent.
2. However, the learned Senior Government
Pleader - Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that the
order issued by the District Collector under the
provisions of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land
Utilization Order (KLU Order for short) has been
produced on record, along with a Memo dated
10.08.2021. She pointed out that, as is evident
from the said order, the petitioner's application
under the KLU Order has been rejected for valid
reasons; and therefore, prayed that this contempt
case be closed.
3. In reply, Shri.A.S.Dilip, learned counsel
for the petitioner, submitted that the statements
in the present order issued by the District
Collector is in blatant disregard to the directions
of this Court in the various judgments in the past,
including in W.P(C)No.5756 of 2012 and
W.P(C)No.5853 of 2015. He further submitted that
when an earlier Contempt Case, namely COC No.259 of
2020 had been considered by this Court, an order
produced therein in purported compliance of the
directions in the judgment and order involved in
this case was found completely unsatisfactory; thus
closing the said case recording the undertaking of
the District Collector that he will pass a fresh
order.
4. Shri.A.S.Dilip then asserted that the
present order issued by the District Collector is a
verbatim reproduction of the earlier order found
unsatisfactory by this Court; and thus prayed that
necessary action under the Contempt of Courts Act
be taken against the respondent.
5. I have evaluated the submissions of
Shri.A.S.Dilip very carefully; but am afraid that I
cannot find favour with it because am of the
certain view that petitioner must challenge the new
order issued by the District Collector on its
merits. I say this because, when Contempt Case
No.259 of 2020 has been disposed of, this Court had
certainly recorded displeasure with the order
issued by the District Collector at that stage,
finding that it had not referred to any of the
earlier judgments or to the orders relied upon by
the petitioner. However, in the present order, the
District Collector is seen to have adverted to all
such and if the petitioner, is therefore, aggrieved
by the decision taken therein, then her remedy
certainly is to challenge the same appropriately
before this Court or before the competent Forum.
In the afore circumstances, this contempt case
is closed; however, leaving full liberty to the
petitioner to challenge the new order issued by the
District Collector; and for such purpose, all her
contentions are left open.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/22.9
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1007/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED
9.3.2021 IN CO.CASE (C) NO 191/2021
Annexure 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
9.3.2021 IN IA 1/2021 IN WPCC 21204/2018
Annexure 3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
34864/2015 DATED 25.2.2016
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO L/15/36364/16
DATED 30.3.2016 WITH ITS ENGLISH
TRANSLATION
Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2016
IN WA NO 982/2016
Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO L/15/86423/16
DATED 30.11.2016 WITH ITS ENGLISH
TRANSLATION
Annexure 7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 2PC
21204/2018 DATED 29.10.2019
Annexure 8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.3.2020
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DURING THE
PENDENCY OF CON CASE (C) 259/2020 SERVED
ON THE PETITIONER ON 29.5.2020
Annexure 9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
4.11.2020 IN CON.CASE NO 259/2020
Annexure 10 TRUE COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED
28.10.2015 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN
HER HUSBAND SAJIS FAVOUR WHO IS THE
SIGNATORY TO THIS PROCEEDING
Annexure 11 CERTIFIED COPY OF W.P(C) NO.5756/2012
DATED 07.03.2012
Annexure - 12 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF
W.P(C)NO.5756/2021 DATED 9.10.2012
Annexure - 13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION
REQUEST SENT BY THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR
PARUR TO THE RESPONDENT
Annexure -14 CERTIFIED COPY OF W.P(C)NO.5853/2015
DATED 23.02.2015.
Annexure -15 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF
W.P(C)NO.5853/2015 DATED 26.6.2015.
