IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 1233 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19778/2011 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAN, CHERUVALLIKUNNATH HOUSE, P.O ARANGOTTUKARA, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M.ANILKUMAR, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR. GP SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Con.Case(C).No. 1233 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A THE CERTIFIED COPY OF HTE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO. 19778/2011, DTD. 20.07.2011, PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. ANNEXURE B THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE REPONDENTS. /true copy/ P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... C.O.C.1233/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 7th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Proceedings under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2011, were initiated against the petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No.KL- 07-G-4010. Petitioner approached this Court claiming interim custody of the vehicle and by Annexure-A judgment in W.P.(C). 19778/2011, it was directed that that orders on his request will be passed. According to the petitioner, instead of complying with the said order, Annexure B final order has been passed. It is alleging that the said order is in violation of the judgment of this Court, COC has been filed. 2. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter and submits that judgment was communicated to the respondent on 27.7.2011 and that in order to expedite the conclusion of the whole proceedings, Annexure-B order has been passed. 3. If, for an early conclusion of the proceedings, instead of C.O.C.1233/11 2 passing piece meal order, final order itself has been passed, I do not take it as a case of deliberate violation of the directions of this Court warranting proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. It is clarified that it will be open to the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies that are available against Annexure B order. Subject to the above, COC is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge