IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 65 of 2010(S) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.21453/2007 Dated 14/08/2007 .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. KASTHURI RAJAN, AGED 55, W/O.LATE M.A.RAJAN, HARI NIVAS, PONKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. HARINARAYANAN.M.R., AGED 27, S/O.LATE M.A.RAJAN, HARI NIVAS, PONKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER GRISH M.R. 3. GIRISH.M.R., AGED 26, S/O.LATE M.A.RAJAN, HARI NIVAS, PONKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.VIJU ABRAHAM MR.DOMINIC JOHNSON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- P.K.SANTHOSHKUMAR, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANJIRAPALLY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cont.Case (C).No.65 of 2010-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010. Judgment The learned Government Pleader submits that the respondent Tahsildar has issued a decision on 12.3.2010 and directions have been issued to the Village Officer to effect mutation. The said action has been taken on the basis of Annexure-1 judgment which was issued on 14.8.2007 requiring such action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. This contempt of court case was filed on 14.1.2010 and the action followed only in March, 2010. Obviously, even the belated action taken as of now, would not have come but for the institution of this contempt of court case. Taking into consideration the enormous delay in the matter, the respondent is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs to the petitioner. Such amount shall be paid within a period of one COC65/10 -: 2 :- month. It is also clarified that the petitioner will be at liberty to agitate on any issue, if found aggrieved by the decision of the Tahsildar. This contempt of court case is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/2203