Thazhe Veettil Rajan vs Sri. T.P. Sujesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8598 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
                         CON.CASE(C) NO. 668 OF 2022
     AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20242/2020 DATED 2.11.2021


PETITIONER:

             THAZHE VEETTIL RAJAN, AGED 51 YEARS
             PERINGOME AMSOM, PERINTHATTA DESOM,
             MAPPADICHAL, PURAKKUNNU P.O.,
             PAYYANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
             PIN - 670306

             BY ADV E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI


RESPONDENTS:

    1        SRI. T.P. SUJESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
             FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
             THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERAMAM VILLAGE,
             KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670306

    2        SRI. K. BALAGOPALAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
             FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
             THE TAHSILDAR, PAYYANNUR TALUK,
             KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307


             SMT PARVATHY K-GP


     THIS     CONTEMPT   OF   COURT    CASE     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 COC 668/22
                                         2



                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner alleges that no orders have been issued by

the respondents, even though the time frame in the judgment in

WP(C)No.20242/2020 has expired.

2. However, the learned Government Pleader -

Smt.Parvathy K., submitted that the afore assertions are not

correct and that the respondents have issued an order dated

01.06.2022, in implicit compliance with the directions of this

Court; and that a copy of the same has been produced along

with a memo dated 24.06.2022.

3. Sri.E.N.Vishnu Namboodiri - learned counsel for the

petitioner, however, submitted that the new order issued by the

respondents is also in blatant violation of the directions of this

Court because, he had been ordered to effect transfer of Registry

in favour of his client, if there are no legal impediments. He

argued that, going by the new order, the Authority has merely

cited certain factual reasons why his client cannot be granted the

benefit; and thus prayed that further action under the Contempt COC 668/22

of Courts Act be continued against him.

4. Even when I hear the learned counsel for the

petitioner on the afore lines, I am afraid that I cannot enter into

the merits of the new order dated 01.06.2022 issued by the

respondents because, the question whether the reasons stated

therein are valid or otherwise, cannot be assessed while

exercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act. The

petitioner will certainly have to challenge the said order

appropriately.

Resultantly, leaving liberty to the petitioner to challenge

the new order appositely - for which purpose, all his contentions

are left open - I close this Contempt Case without any further

orders.

Sd/-

RR                                                DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                           JUDGE
 COC 668/22


             APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 668/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1        TRUE COPY OF WILL DEED DATED 19.1.1989

EXECUTED BY THE FATHER OF PETITIONER LATE AMBU IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 19.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P (C) NO. 20242/2020 DATED 2.11.2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 15.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER