IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 1254 of 2010(S)
1. RAJENDRAN, S/O. GOVINDANASAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DEVENDRA KUMAR DHODAVATH, I.A.S.,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.TRIPTEN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :22/10/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
---------------------------------------
Contempt Case(C) No.1254 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner alleges non-compliance with directions in
Annexure-I judgment. Annexure-I judgment reads as follows:
“The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order passed by the 2nd
respondent under the Kerala Protection of River Banks
and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 granting
interim custody of the vehicle of the petitioner on the
ground that the conditions prescribed therein are not in
accordance with the Full Bench decision of this Court in
Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala and Others, 2010 (3)
KHC 333.
2. I have herd the learned Government Pleader
also.
On a reading of Ext.P1, it is clear that the
conditions stipulated therein are not in accordance with
the above said Full Bench decision. Therefore, Ext.P1 is
quashed. The appropriate authority under the Act is
directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for
interim custody as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment, in accordance with the above said Full
Bench decision”
The petitioner’s contention now is that originally the value of the
vehicle was fixed as Rs.3 lakhs and now pursuant to Annexure-I
judgment, an order has been passed fixing the value as Rs.7.5
lakhs, which according to the petitioner is against the directions
C.O.C.No.1254/10 2
in Annexure-I judgment. In so far as in Annexure-I judgment
I had not said anything about fixation of value of the vehicle
and the learned counsel for the petitioner himself admits that
against the order passed, the petitioner has filed another writ
petition, which is pending before another court, I do not think
that the petitioner has made out a case for initiating
proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the
petitioner to pursue the writ petition filed, this Contempt Case
is closed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
acd
C.O.C.No.1254/10 3
C.O.C.No.1254/10 4