IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 364 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.35626/2007 Dated 19/12/2007 .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.V.JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE GEORGE, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLINADA, EDAPPALLY SOUTH, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-682025. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DR.M.BEENA, IAS, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.P.VIJAYA KUMAR, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682030. 2. POTTIL AJITH BHAGATH RAO, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT COCHIN, COCHIN-682001. 3. SRI.JAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, EDAPPALLY SOUTH, COCHIN-682024. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Contempt of Court Case NO. 364 OF 2010 (S) ============================== Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The allegation in this petition is that further action based on Annexure A2 judgment in WP(C) No.35626/2007 is not initiated. 2. Learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that in pursuance to the directions, the 4th respondent conducted an enquiry and submitted his report to the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is also stated that, thereupon it was found that the Corporation has to take further action in the matter and that the matter has been forwarded to the Corporation under cover of letter dated 16/3/2010. 3. If the facts is as stated above, it cannot be said that the respondents herein are guilty of inaction as alleged by the petitioner. Now that the matter has been forwarded to the Corporation, it is upto the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Corporation and it is for that authority to take appropriate action in this matter. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the matter as above, the contempt of court case is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp