IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 966 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36933/2010 Dated 11/02/2011 .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ALI HAJI, S/O. BAVA RAWTHER, AGED 52 YEARS, BLOSSOM MANZIL, KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. MOHANKUMAR K.V., AGED AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD - 678 541. 3. K.I. BASHEER, S/O.K.K. IBRAHIM, AMBATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTHAMPILLY, THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 582. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DS Con.Case(C).No. 966 of 2011(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE-A1-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 65 OF THE RR ACT BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. ANNEXURE-A2-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30/10/2010 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 65 OF THE RR ACT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. ANNEXURE-A3-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/11/2010 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. ANNEXURE-A4-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P(C)NO.36933/2010 DATED 11/02/2011. ANNEXURE-A5-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/07/2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-A6-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 65 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ON 28/07/2011 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE-V ORDER. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE DS C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Contempt of Court (C).No.966 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- By virtue of Annexure-4 judgment this court quashed the impugned notice and the 1st respondent was directed to issue fresh notice calling upon for objections if any against the action proposed under Section 55 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It was further directed that a fresh decision shall be taken after affording opportunity to the petitioner for filing objections and for personal hearing. 2. Complaint of the petitioner is that Annexure-5 proceedings accompanied with Annexure-6 notice was issued in a pre-determined manner, even before affording opportunity to the petitioner to file objections. 3. Considering Annexures 5 and 6, I am of the view that the action of issuing such a proceedings will not amount to an act punishable under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. If the 1st respondent had issued those proceedings in a manner not in accordance with the essence of the directions contained in Annexure-4 judgment, it is left open to the COC.966/11 -2- petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that a writ petition has already been filed challenging Annexures 5 and 6. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances the Contempt of Court case is closed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue challenges against Annexures 5 and 6. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb