IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 100 of 2011(S)
1. M.P.RAPPAI, AGED 55 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THOMAS JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :02/02/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Contempt Case(C) No. 100 of 2011
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011
J U D G M E N T
By Annexure-1 judgment in W.P(C)
No.30674/2010, the respondent was directed to consider the
claim of the petitioner in Ext.P9 therein, in the light of Exts.P1,
P3 and P4 reports. Accordingly, request was considered and
Annexure-5 order has been issued. It is on receipt of the said
order, the Contempt case has been filed.
2. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the
order has been issued without referring to the reports. A
reading of the order shows that the respondent has taken the
view that the aforesaid reports have relevance only in so far
as extraction of sand is concerned and had no relevance in
the context of the case of the petitioner for extraction of clay.
3. Irrespective of the correctness of the view taken in
the order now issued, now that the said order has been
issued in compliance with the judgment, this Court will not be
COC No.100/2011
: 2 :
justified in concluding that any contempt has been committed.
Therefore, the remedy available to the petitioner is to work out
his remedy against the aforesaid order.
Without prejudice to that liberty, this Contempt Case is
closed.
Sd/-
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge