Jebi Matherhisham vs Geetha R. Chandran
2024 Latest Caselaw 17467 Ker

Kerala High Court

Jebi Matherhisham vs Geetha R. Chandran on 21 June, 2024

Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar

Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
 FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1946
                 CON.CASE(C) NO. 781 OF 2018
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.10.2017 IN WPC NO.29003 OF
                 2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC 29003/2017:

          JEBI MATHERHISHAM
          AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.HISHAM AHAMMED,
          NOW RESIDING AT KAROTHUKUZHI RIVER SIDE 20,
          MASJID ROAD, ALUVA-683101.
          BY ADV SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 6 IN WPC 29003/2017:

          GEETHA R. CHANDRAN
          FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE
          PETITIONER, CONVENOR, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING
          COMMITTEE, KAKKANAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-682030.
          SRI.E.C.BINEESH GP
     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO.781 OF 2018                    2



                              P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
                      -----------------------------------------------
                      Contempt Case (C) No.781 of 2018
                      -----------------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 21st day of June, 2024
                                   JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to get

instructions from the party as to the compliance of the directions issued by

this Court. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that

even though the petitioner was directed to make available the FMB (Field

Measurement Book) sketch of the property referred to in the writ petition

as also the demand draft towards the fee payable to the Kerala State

Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) for obtaining report

from them as to the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy

Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the petitioner has not complied with the said

direction. As such, according to the learned Government Pleader, the

respondent was unable to comply with the directions issued by this Court.

In the light of the submission made by the learned

Government Pleader, this Contempt of Court Case is closed, without

prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file an application for revival of

the contempt proceedings, if required.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

Mn

APPENDIX

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 29003/2017 DATED 09.10.2017 ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE RESPONDENT