IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 206 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16136/2007 Dated 04/10/2007 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------ PADMANABHAN V.MENO, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. P.P.VISWANATHA MENON, RESIDING AT VISWAS MEENCHANDA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. K.P. SURESH BABU, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) KOZHIKODE. 2. ASOKAN, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, MEENCHANDA SUB REGISTRY, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== Cont.Case(C) NO. 206 OF 2008 S ==================== Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T By Annexure A1 judgment, W.P.(C)No. 16136/07 was disposed of holding that the stamp duty payable on the partition deed executed by the petitioner and his family members is at the rate that was prevailing on the date of execution of the document. Accordingly, it was directed that the 2nd Respondent herein shall verify the date when the parties signed the document and assess the duty prevailing as on that date. 2. The petitioner's contention was that in terms of the Kerala Finance Bill 2006 (wrongly described as 'Ordinance' in the judgment) the stamp duty payable was only Rs.1,000/- and not Rs.27,290/- which was prevailing prior to 1.4.2006. However, in Annexure A5 order, the 1st Respondent has held that though the document was executed on 22.6.2006, the amendment introduced by the Kerala Finance Bill, 2006 had lapsed and therefore, the stamp duty payable was Rs.27,290/- and not Rs.1,000/-. It is in view of Annexure A5 that contending that the 1st respondent has usurped the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent, who was directed to consider the matter, this contempt case is filed. COC No.206/08 :2 : 3. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Govt. Pleader, I am not satisfied that a case of disobedience of Annexure A1 judgment has been made out. First of all, I cannot agree that the 1st Respondent has usurped the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent by considering the matter. In Annexure A5 itself, it is stated that it is based on a report made by the 2nd respondent that the 1st respondent has issued the communication. Secondly, no deliberate intention to flout the judgment can also be attributed against the respondents. A reading of Annexure A5 order discloses that according to the 1st respondent, in view of the dissolution of the legislative assembly w.e.f 12.5.2006 the amendment introduced by the Kerala Finance Bill, 2006 did not come into force in view of the provision contained in Article 196 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is on account of the aforesaid provision that the 1st respondent has taken the view that the petitioner is liable to pay stamp duty as it was originally fixed in the Kerala Stamp Act. This does not disclose any attempt to willfully disobey the judgment. COC No.206/08 :3 : 4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A5, the course open to the petitioner is to challenge the said order. I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, Cont. Case (C) will stand dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp