IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1044 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.23841/2007 Dated 14/02/2008 .................... PETITIONER: ----------------- I.S. SAJAN, S/O. SANDHYAVU, AGED 40, IRUMPANATH HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH.P.O, KOCHI-682 508. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. VENUGOPAL, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE SECRETARY, ELANKUNNAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALIPURAM.P.O, ERNAKLUAM. 2. K.M. JOSEPH, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. R1 BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU R2 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Cont. case (C).No.1044 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This contempt of court case has been filed on the allegation that the order dated 14.2.2008 in W.P(C).No.23841/07 has not been complied with. The charge levelled against the respondents are that no action was taken on the strength of Ext.P1 and what was ordered on 14.2.2008 was to place the action taken report, which meant, according to the petitioner, to take action and to place the report. Having regard to the contentions raised on rival sides, I have looked into the materials in W.P(C).23841/07 also. It is seen that the direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to call for the action taken report on Ext.P1 has been appropriately done and a report dated 2.5.2008 has been placed on record along with memo submitted by the learned Government Pleader on 23.5.2008. It was then suggested on behalf of the petitioner in this application that the exercise now being undertaken is to get over COC.1044/08 Page numbers the direction issued on 14.2.2008 and that is how action is proposed to take against the writ petitioner also. It does not appear to be so. I say so because a perusal of the aforesaid report of the additional 5th respondent would show that following Ext.P1 order, the Taluk Surveyor measured the puramboke on 25.6.2007 and identified four persons, including the petitioner, as encroachers. Following that, the panchayat authorities have initiated action for conservancy in terms of the relevant laws. I may also notice that Ext.P1 contains a direction to the Taluk Surveyor to identify the puramboke thodu. Obviously therefore, even while issuing Ext.P1, the RDO was not satisfied that the puramboke was appropriately identified to have any action for dispossession. With these materials on record, no case of willful negligence or default in carrying out the interim order dated 14.2.2008 is made out and hence, the contempt case is necessarily to be closed, without prejudice to the contentions of the parties in the writ petition, also clarifying that nothing stated in this judgment is intended to preclude the parties to place all COC.1044/08 Page numbers contentions at the hearing of the writ petition. The contempt case is closed accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.26/7.