IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1292 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19771/2008 Dated 01/07/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/2ND PETITIONER IN WPC 19771/08 -------------------------------------------------------- V.N.MUSAVU RAWTHER, S/O NAVOOR KHANI, AGED 76, VADAKOTHIL,KARINILAM P.O., MUNDAKKAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENT(S)/2nd RESPONDENT IN WPC 19771/2008: -------------------------------------------------------------------- R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ Contempt Case No.1292 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner complains of non-compliance with the direction in Annexure-A1 judgment. The direction in Annexure- A1 judgment was to the Taluk Supply Officer to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3, which is an application for return of documents seized by the respondent. According to the petitioner, seven documents were seized from him and only five were returned. The card register and the complaint book, which were also seized along with the other documents, were not returned, is the complaint raised. The petitioner, therefore, submits that the Taluk Supply Officer has not complied with the direction in Annexure-A1 judgment in letter and spirit. 2. In the affidavit accompanying the application for dispensing with the personal appearance of the respondent, the respondent has stated that the concerned Rationing Inspector, who seized the documents, originally prepared a mahazar, in which seven documents were recorded as having seized. C.O.C.No.1292/2008 2 However, after preparing the mahazar the card register and the complaint book were not immediately available with the petitioner and therefore on the assurance made by the petitioner that those documents also would be produced the next day, the Rationing Inspector did not make any change in the seizure mahazar trusting the petitioner. Later on, when the application for return of documents was considered, the card register and the complaint book were not available among the records. Under the impression that the same must have been misplaced, Annexure -I order has been passed intimating the petitioner that the office copy of the card register and a substitute for the complaint book would be handed over to the petitioner, if he approaches the office of the Taluk Supply Officer on any working day. Later on, on enquiry it was found that the said documents were not actually seized. Therefore, Annexure-II notice was issued to the petitioner for a hearing in respect of the same. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner did not appear, but the salesman of the ration shop, who was the son of the petitioner, appeared and informed the respondent that C.O.C.No.1292/2008 3 his father is not in a position to attend the enquiry. Therefore, Annexure-IV order was passed intimating the petitioner that the two documents are still with the petitioner and therefore, the same cannot be returned to the petitioner as now claimed by the petitioner. The above is the explanation for non-return of those two documents. 3. The petitioner has filed a counter affidavit disputing all these contentions. According to him, his son had submitted Annexure-5 letter seeking seven days' time, which was refused to be accepted. The petitioner still maintains that the two documents referred to above were also seized by the Rationing Inspector. The respondent denied having received Annexure-5. I am not inclined to go into the merits of the disputed facts stated by both parties. I am of opinion that these are all matters, which the petitioner should take up at the time of hearing of the matter now pending before the appropriate authority, pursuant to the seizure. I am not satisfied that this is a fit case to continue proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the C.O.C.No.1292/2008 4 petitioner to take up all his contentions in the proceedings now pending before the appropriate authority pursuant to the seizure, this Contempt Case is closed. I make it abundantly clear that I have not considered the merits of the contentions of both the parties. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd C.O.C.No.1292/2008 5