IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 248 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.231/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER. -------------------------- S. MUHAMMED ISMAIL, S/O. LATE A.SULAIMAN RAWTHER, RESIDING AT ASR BUNGLOW, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, KOPPAM AMSOM, DESOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------- 1. P.DHANESHKUMAR,AGE 39 YEARS AND FATHER'S NAME S/O.NARAYANAN, DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. AYYAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, FORESTER, KOLLENGODE FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KOLLENGODE,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. KITHALAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, FOREST GUARD,KOLLENGODE FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KOLLENGODE,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANTHOSH RAJA. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Cont. Case (C) No. 248 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 25th March, 2009. J U D G M E N T This contempt case is filed by the petitioner complaining that the respondents have violated the interim order dated 3-1-2008 in W.P(C) No. 231/2008. By the said order, I directed that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed pursuant to Ext. P23 until further orders. An affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the petitioner was not in possession on the date of filing of the writ petition and therefore the question of dispossession of the petitioner does not arise. According to the respondents, the land was all along in the possession of the Government. In the above circumstances, I posted the writ petition itself and the issue regarding continuance of the interim order was heard. Today, I have vacated the interim order. 2. In this contempt case, since the question of possession was seriously disputed, I do not think that further proceedings should be continued in the contempt proceedings especially in view of the fact that the interim order has been vacated by me today. In the above circumstances, the contempt case is closed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.