IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 224 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35773/2008 Dated 04/12/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): 6TH RESPONDENT ----------------------------- VARGHESE ANTONY (KUNJACHAN) S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 55 YRS,MUTTUMPURAM VEEDU, MITHRAKKARI, KUTTANADU, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 2-5 ------------------------------ 1. SRI.V.K.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.AND AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SMT.T.V.SOBHANA, W/O AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SRI.T.R.AZAD,S/O AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 4. SRI.SASIDHARAN,S/O AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE VILLAGE OFFICER,MUTTAR, KUTTANADU, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LAKSHMI RANI THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- C.O.C.224/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Sixth respondent in Writ Petition No.35773/2008, which was disposed of by Annexure-A1 judgment dated 4.12.2008, alleges that the direction issued in the judgment, requiring the District Collector, the first respondent, to see that the directions if any, issued by his subordinate authority for removing obstruction to a Vachal Thodu, is implemented in accordance with law, has not been correctly understood and that the actual implementation has been effected otherwise than in accordance with law. 2. I make it clear that the direction issued in Annexure-A1 judgment, to the District Collector is only to see that if any lawful orders have been passed by a person authorized in that behalf by any statute, then, such orders should be implemented. If under the guise of implementing any such order, any other irregularity has cropped up, then, it is obviously C.O.C.224/2009 2 open to the aggrieved person including the petitioner herein, to challenge the said action before an appropriate forum. But the remedy does not lie by way of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, reserving the rights of the petitioner to take appropriate action, against any action that is alleged to have been taken, subsequent to Annexure-A1 judgment, Contempt of Court case is closed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs