IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 62 of 2010(S) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33649/2005 Dated 20/06/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WPC. ------------------------- SUDHAKARAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, KURUPPAMTHARA, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) ------------------------- A.G.KORA (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THIS PEITIONER) THE GEOLOGIST MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.NARAYANAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ Cont.Case (C)No.62 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Alleging disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in Annexure A-I judgment, this writ petition has been filed. 2. This Court directed the second respondent to take appropriate action on Exts.P5 and P6 representations with notice to the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment, and see that the fields are levelled. 3. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is explained that actions have already been taken against Sri.Raveendran in 2004 itself and directions have been issued to refill the pit caused by the excavation. Since no steps have been taken to refill the pit by Raveendran, Revenue Recovery Proceedings have been initiated against Sri.Raveendran for recovering the Rs.5,31,688/- quantified for the purpose of meeting the expenses to fill the pit. Annexure R1(a) to R1(c) have been produced in support of the averments, which show that for initiating Revenue Recovery action, repeated communications have been issued by the respondent. The Cont.Case (C)No.62 of 2010 2 respondent will therefore pursue the steps further. 4. I am satisfied that there is no wilful disobedience on the part of the respondent in complying with the directions issued by this Court. Recording the steps already taken, the Contempt Case is closed. The same will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach this Court or any other Forum for seeking to expedite the Revenue Recovery Proceedings. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj