IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 52 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.28381/2010 DATED 30/09/2010] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- JAGANATHA PRASAD S/O.LATE C.SAHADEVAN, AGED 54 YEARS, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT C.S.SADANAM, T.B.ROAD KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 IN W.P.(C): ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BABU THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS (WHOSE FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER), THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY,KOTTAYAM, HAVING OFFICE IN P.W.D.COMPOUND, T.B.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 2. MINI ANTONY,AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, (WHOSE FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER), THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- Cont. Case (Civil). No.52 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is alleging violation of the directions contained in the judgment in WP(C).No.28381/2010, dated 30.9.2010. In fact by the said judgment no specific direction was issued to any of the respondents therein. But this court made only an observation to the effect that, the 3rd respondent shall take note of the objections raised in Ext.P5 while making fresh proclamation for sale of the car. 2. According to the petitioner, even after the judgment the petitioner made various representations to fix the upset price of the car before proceeding with further steps for sale. Pointing out Annexure A5 to A8 the petitioner raised a complaint that the sale is now proceeded without fixing the upset price. It could not be concluded that the respondent had not fixed the upset price merely because the same was not incorporated in the proclamation of sale. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents by the learned Government Pleader that he has COC .52/2011 2 instructions to the effect that, the upset price was fixed on the basis of valuation obtained from the Mechanical Engineer attached to the KSRTC and upset price of the car was fixed at Rs.2,25,000/-. 3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I find no merit in the contempt petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 4. However, it is left open to the petitioner to challenge the sale if any takes place on the basis of any of the grounds sustainable under law. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ COC .52/2011 3