IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 1757 of 2007(S) --------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.34730/2007 ........................................................ PETITIONER/PETITONER IN WPC COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES LTD., DOOR NO.39/4946-A, GROUND FLOOR, UNION OFFICE BUILDING, PALLIMUKKU, KOCHI-682 016 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MR.S.D.BHATTAR. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH RESPONDENT/IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ 1. MR. RASHEED, AGED AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KANAYANNUR TALUK. *2. SRI. JUPAN, REVENUE INSPECTOR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KANAYANNUR TALUK. *3. SMT. SUDHA, SECTION OFFICER, -E7, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. *ADDL. R2 AND R3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04/02/2008 IN COC NO. 1757/2007. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- C.O.C. 1757/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2007 ORDER Contempt is alleged in relation to the prohibitory order stated to have been issued by the respondent herein, freezing the bank account of the petitioner. Contention is that the prohibitory order came to be issued in the teeth of the directions contained in the judgment passed by this Court on 23.11.2007. It was made clear in Annexure-A1 Judgment that further enforcement of recovery notices, produced as Exts.P3 and P4, as against the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance till the Collector takes a decision in the manner directed therein. Annexure-A2 is a letter which was sent by the petitioner to the Tahasildar, Kanayannur Taluk , on 23.11.2006 conveying information about the judgment. Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner refers to a letter of the counsel for the petitioner also. Petitioner contends that in spite of sending it, the prohibitory order came to be issued with the knowledge of the contents of the judgment in Annexure-A1. Though prohibitory order in C.O.C.1757/2007 2 Annexure-A1 is dated 23.11.2007, according to the counsel for the petitioner, there is reason to believe that it was brought into existence much later, that too with the knowledge of contents of the judgment in Annexure-A1. Prima facie, there seems to be substance in this contention. 2. Though the prohibitory order is stated to have been lifted subsequent to the institution of Contempt of Court case, I am of the view that the respondent should file an affidavit with regard to the averments in the Contempt of Court Case. Same shall be done on or before 8.1.2008. If no affidavit is filed by 8.1.2008, respondent shall appear in person at 10.15 a.m on 9.1.2008. Post on 9.1.2008. Hand over a copy to both sides. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs