IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1006 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19742/2010 Dated 24/06/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.K.YOUSAF,S/O.IBRAHIM,THEYYALIKAYIL HOUSE,PURANGU,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M.C.MOHANDAS,AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Contempt Case (C) No.1006 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ravindran,J. The petitioner is the owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL-13P/9580. The said vehicle was seized on the allegation that it was used for transporting river sand without a valid pass. The petitioner thereupon moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.19742 of 2010 seeking interim custody of the said vehicle. By Annexure-A judgment delivered on 24.6.2010, a Division Bench of this Court directed the District Collector to release the vehicle after unloading the sand, on the petitioner remitting the sum of Rs.25,000/- after making an endorsement in the R.C.Book of the vehicle that the release is subject to adjudication by the District Collector. It is alleged that though pursuant to Annexure-A judgment, the petitioner approached the respondent on 28.6.2010 and produced a certified copy of Annexure-A judgment before him, the respondent was not prepared to release the vehicle. The COC.No.1006/2010 2 petitioner further alleges that the respondent told him that he will not obey the directions of this Court. On these allegations, the petitioner requests this Court to initiate proceedings against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. The petitioner has no case in the contempt case that he had gone over to the District Collector's office with the registration certificate of the vehicle or that he had tendered the sum of Rs.25,000/- as directed by this Court for release of the vehicle. The only contention of the petitioner is that though the petitioner produced a certified copy of Annexure-A judgment before the respondent on 28.6.2010, he was not prepared to release the vehicle, after unloading the sand. Since the petitioner has not even pleaded that he had produced the R.C.Book of the vehicle before the respondent and had also tendered the sum of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent, we are of the opinion that no prima facie case has been made out for initiating proceedings against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. COC.No.1006/2010 3 We, accordingly, hold that no grounds have been made out to proceed against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The contempt petition fails and is dismissed. J.CHELAMESWAR, Chief Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. nj.