IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 951 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.12802/2009 Dated 28/04/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANILKUMAR, AGED 32YEARS, RESIDING AT KADUVILA KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, VAYALA VADKKEKARA MURI, VALLIKODU VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.R.RANJITH SRI.M.T.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- T.T.ANTONY, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P.MAGUZHA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON.J -------------------------------- C.O.C.No.951 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th September,2009 JUDGMENT This petition has been filed stating that there is wilful disobedience on the part of second respondent in so far as the direction given by this Court in W.P.(C) NO.12802/2009 is yet to be complied with. 2. As per the above judgment, the second respondent in the Writ Petition (the District Collector, Pathanamthitta) was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5, for releasing the interim custody of the vehicle as specified. On service of notice in the contempt matter, the respondent has filed an affidavit, pointing out the sequence of events, stating that copy of Annexure A judgment was served to the respondents on 13/5/2009 and that much prior to the said date, an order of confiscation of the vehicle was passed on 4/3/2009, i.e. even much before the date judgment dated 28/4/2009. It is also stated that necessary instruction has already been given to the learned C.O.C.No.951 of 2009 2 Advocate General, vide letter dated 4/6/2009, for filing necessary review to bring out the actual position to the notice of this court. 3. In view of the fact that the proceedings were finalised by the respondent after giving an opportunity of hearing to the registered owner of the vehicle, who is none other than the wife of the writ petitioner, as conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also in view of the fact that order of confiscation was passed much prior to the date of judgment, there is absolutely no element of any contumacious act. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the order passed by the respondent, it goes without saying that the same has to challenged by way of separate appropriate proceedings. 4. In the above circumstances, no interference is called for and the contempt of court case is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,JUDGE ssn