C.P.Radhakrishnan vs M.T.Anil Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 9986 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
  WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944
                 CON.CASE(C) NO. 443 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.05.2019 IN WP(C)NO.7783 OF 2019
                   OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/S:

     1     C.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 70 YEARS
           S/O. PADMANABHA PILLA, CHEMBOTHINALIL HOUSE,
           MUDAKUZHA, AIMOOR WEST VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

     2     VIJAYAMMA.C.P., AGED 64 YEARS
           D/O. PADMANABHA PILLA, CHEMBOTHINALIL HOUSE,
           MUDAKUZHA, AIMOOR WEST VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM
           DISTRICT,REP BY HER GUARDIAN C.P.RADHAKRISHNAN

     3     GIRIJA.C.P., AGED 54 YEARS
           D/O. PADMANABHA PILLA, CHEMBOTHINALIL HOUSE,
           MUDAKUZHA, AIMOOR WEST VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
           REP BY HER GUARDIAN C.P.RADHAKRISHNAN

           BY ADV Biju P.P


RESPONDENT/S:

           M.T.ANIL KUMAR,
           REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHAL THE REVENUE
           DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISION OFFICE
           MUVATTUPUZHA,PIN-686 661

           BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER



OTHER PRESENT:

           SR.GP SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN


     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 31.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                  2

CON.CASE(C) NO. 443 OF 2020

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioners have filed this contempt case alleging non-

compliance of the directions contained in Annexure-A judgment of

this Court dated 21.05.2019 in W.P.(C).No.7783 of 2019, whereby

that writ petition was disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent

therein Revenue Divisional Officer to enforce Ext.P4 order in

exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of Section 141 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. The 2nd respondent was directed to

take necessary steps in that regard, as expeditiously as possible,

at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt

of a certified copy of that judgment. In the judgment, this Court

found that, in the absence of any materials to show that Ext.P4

order is under challenge, at the hands of the 4th respondent

therein (Antony), the petitioners are entitled for enforcement of

the said order.

2. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration,

the learned Government Pleader would submit that on survey it

was found that there is no encroachment of water channel by

Antony, who was arrayed as the 6th respondent in W.P(C)No.7783

of 2019. As a matter of fact, the encroachment was made by

seven others against whom proceedings have already been

initiated, which is under challenge in W.P.(C)No.22558 of 2022.

CON.CASE(C) NO. 443 OF 2020

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

that the petitioners are already arrayed as party respondents in

that writ petition.

In such circumstances, I find no reason to proceed with the

Contempt Case and the same is closed, without prejudice to the

right of the petitioners herein to defend W.P(C)No.22558 of 2022

raising appropriate legal and factual contentions.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE.

bkn/-

CON.CASE(C) NO. 443 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 443/2020

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 21.5.2019 IN WPC.NO.7783/2019