IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 1774 of 2007(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.20909/2007 Dated 12/07/2007 .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: ----------------- 1. P.DHANYA @ DHANYA RAMPRASAD, AGED 30 YRS. W/O.RAMPRASAD UNNI.T., "SUMTHRUPTHI" KALATHIPARAMBA CROSS ROAD, KOCHI-16. 2. DR.SREEKUMARI KAV, W/O.K.RAMAKUMAR, AGED 64 YEARS, "SUMTHRUPTHI", KALATHIPARAMBA CROSS ROAD, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS; ------------------------- 1. DR.RETTAN KELKAR, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, THE SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM. 2. SRI.P.V.RAMDAS, FATHERS NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM. 3. SRI.AMBROSE.R.V., FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, THE VILLAGE OFFICER, K D H VILLAGE, MUNNAR BY ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.K.BABU THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= Con. Case (C) No. 1774 of 2007 ======================= Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners allege violation of the interim order dated 12.7.2007 in Writ Petition (C) No.20909/2007 and connected case, which order is produced as Annexure A in the contempt case. By the said interim order, I directed the respondents to furnish six items of information. The allegation in the contempt case is that some of those information have not been specifically supplied and since the Government was directed to take possession of the properties on the condition that they shall furnish the above information and they have not disclosed the entire information to this Court, it amounts the contempt case. The petitioner further submits that in view of the Supreme Court decision in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd. (AIR 1996 SC 2005) holding that the Contemnor ought not enjoy/keep fruits of his contempt, the property which has been permitted to be taken possession of Con. Case (C) No. 1774/2007 -2- by the State should be directed to be restored to the petitioner. 2. The learned Government Pleader took pains to satisfy me that the information have really been supplied to the Court. Of course, some of the information have been specifically supplied. However in respect of some of the other information, I am of the opinion that the information is either incomplete or vague. For example, information no.3 was information as to against which of the 532 pattas proceedings were initiated on the ground that officer who issued the same did not have authority to issue the same. It is answered as follows by the state. "The 3rd direction is that what action has been taken by the Government against 532 pattas on the ground that issuing officer have no authority to issue the same. It is humbly submitted that only 466 pattas were issued by the officer concerned on the basis of the recommendations made by the Land Assignment Committee specifically constituted under the Provisions of 12 A of the land Assignment Rules." True they submit that only 466 pattas were issued by the officer. However, to my specific question as to whether against which of the 532 pattas, proceedings were initiated on the ground that officer who issued the same have authority to issue Con. Case (C) No. 1774/2007 -3- the same no reply is forthcoming. After having admitted that 466 pattas were issued by the officer concerned, the state had a duty to answer the other question also, as to whether in respect of those 466 pattas whether any proceedings were initiated on the ground that the officer issued the same did not have authority to issue the same. Except insisting that those pattas were issued on the basis of recommendations made by the Land Assignment Committee specifically constituted under the provisions of 12 A of the land Assignment Rules, nothing is stated as to whether proceedings have been initiated on the ground that the officer issued the same would have authority to issue the same. Regarding information nos.5 and 6, what is stated is that in respect of the pattas in favour of 2 political parties Government is verifying the validity of those pattas and the same is under active consideration of the Government. It is also stated that a vigilance enquiry in respect thereof is pending. I am of the opinion that, this is as vague as vague can be. One fails to understand why after proceeding against the petitioner without any delay, in respect of identically situated case, the Government is dragging its feet and why proceedings as in the Con. Case (C) No. 1774/2007 -4- case of the petitioner is not initiated against the pattas issued to the political parties. As such I am thoroughly dissatisfied with some of the answers given by the respondents. However, I feel that further proceedings in the contempt case is not necessary and the matter should be left to the Court hearing writ petition itself to pass appropriate orders in the matter. However, once again, I express strong displeasure in the way the respondent had responded had to the orders of this Court. Of course, the learned Government Pleader would submit that appropriate further information would be furnished within a short time. That is not an answer for a contempt case, in any event. Taking a very lenient view, I close this contempt case. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp