IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1764 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30227/2008 Dated 15/10/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MALATHY CHAMI, AGED 55, W/O.CHAMI, PREETHA NIVAS, CHINGERI TRIBAL COLONY, AMBALAVAYAL P.O., SULTHANBATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- T.P.GOPI, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOTN KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. BY GP SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- C.O.C.1764/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Operative direction in Annexure-I judgment reads as follows:- “Having heard learned Government Pleader also, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P2 and P3, before any decision is taken, or proposed to be taken in that behalf, for leasing out the property in the possession of the petitioner in favour of the second respondent or any other person.” 2. It is not the petitioner's case that any decision has been taken by the District Collector to lease out the property in the possession of the petitioner in favour of the second respondent. Petitioner's grievance stems from an apprehension that Sri.Bose Sebastian, referred to as the second respondent in Annexure-I judgment, is trying to trespass into his C.O.C.1764/2008 2 property. In my view, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court. I am satisfied that no case has been made out to proceed with the case under the Contempt of Courts Act, at this stage. Accordingly, C.O.C is closed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs