IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1254 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24581/2010 Dated 05/08/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN THE WPC ------------------------------------------------ RAJENDRAN, S/O. GOVINDANASAN, AGED 55 YEARS, KIRAN BHAVAN, ADICHANALLOOR.P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.M.TRIPTEN RESPONDENT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- DEVENDRA KUMAR DHODAVATH, I.A.S., AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. --------------------------------------- Contempt Case(C) No.1254 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner alleges non-compliance with directions in Annexure-I judgment. Annexure-I judgment reads as follows: “The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order passed by the 2nd respondent under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 granting interim custody of the vehicle of the petitioner on the ground that the conditions prescribed therein are not in accordance with the Full Bench decision of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala and Others, 2010 (3) KHC 333. 2. I have herd the learned Government Pleader also. On a reading of Ext.P1, it is clear that the conditions stipulated therein are not in accordance with the above said Full Bench decision. Therefore, Ext.P1 is quashed. The appropriate authority under the Act is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for interim custody as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in accordance with the above said Full Bench decision” The petitioner's contention now is that originally the value of the vehicle was fixed as Rs.3 lakhs and now pursuant to Annexure-I judgment, an order has been passed fixing the value as Rs.7.5 lakhs, which according to the petitioner is against the directions C.O.C.No.1254/10 2 in Annexure-I judgment. In so far as in Annexure-I judgment I had not said anything about fixation of value of the vehicle and the learned counsel for the petitioner himself admits that against the order passed, the petitioner has filed another writ petition, which is pending before another court, I do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the writ petition filed, this Contempt Case is closed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd C.O.C.No.1254/10 3 C.O.C.No.1254/10 4