IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 404 of 2008(S) --------------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO..278/2008 IN MACA.197/2008 Dated 05/02/2008 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER:- -------------------------------------- V.J.JOSEPH, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.JACOB, VELAYIL HOUSE, ALUMTHURUTHY P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS:- ----------------------- 1. SRI.JAI SINGH, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA. 2. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PRESENTLY WORKING AS VILLAGE OFFICER, KAVUMBAGAM, THIRUVALLA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Contempt Case (Civil) No.404 of 2008-S ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Alleging that the respondents have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the interim order passed by this Court in I.A.No.278 of 2008 in M.A.C.A.No.197 of 2008 dated 5th February, 2008, the appellant in the appeal has presented this contempt petition. (2). Along with the contempt petition, the petitioner has produced Annexure-I (Interim order) and Annexure-2 (Letter of the learned counsel dated 4th March, 2008). (3). It is the allegation of the complainant/petitioner in this contempt petition that, in spite of there being an interim order passed by this Court the respondents are continuing with the revenue recovery proceedings. (4). In support of that assertion, the complainant/petitioner has not produced any material before this Court. In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the allegations made in the contempt petition, we will not be in a position to initiate any proceedings much less contempt proceedings against the respondents. In that view of the matter, we reject the contempt petition, for the present. However, liberty is reserved to the complainant/petitioner to approach this Court, if need arises in future. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE MS