Kerala High Court
Rani Sardar vs Suresh Kumar
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/1ST CHAITHRA, 1938
Con.Case(C).No. 218 of 2016 (S)
-----------------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 35776/2015 DATED 7/1/16
--------------------
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P(C) :
------------------------------------------------------
RANI SARDAR,
AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.SARDAR,
KALLARAKKAL HOUSE, MALLIANKARA,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH P. PODUVAL
SMT.R.RAJITHA
SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P(C) :
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SURESH KUMAR,
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
THE DISTRICT LOTTERY OFFICER, ERNAKULAM-682 011.
BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
Con.Case(C).No. 218 of 2016 (S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7/1/2016 IN WP(C)
NO. 35776 OF 2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
*****************************************************************************
Contempt Case(C) No.218 of 2016
******************************************************************************
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2016
JUDGMENT
Both sides submit that the directions in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.35776/2015, have been complied with. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2016/13TH PHALGUNA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 270 of 2016 (S)
--------------------------------------------- WP(C) 31057/2015, DATED 13-10-2015
-------------------------
PETITIONER/WRIT PETITIONER:
----------------------------------------------
SALY ABRAHAM, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O M.A.ABRAHAM, MAVELIKUNNAEL HOUSE, KADAMANKULAM P.O., KALOOPARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689603. BY ADVS.SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. SMT.M.B.DHANYA BABU RESPONDENT/IST RESPONDENT IN WPC:
------------------------------------------------------------
S.SREERAM VENKITTA RAMAN, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME OF THE RESPONDENT NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689101. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ Con.Case(C).No. 270 of 2016 (S)
---------------------------------------------
APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE
--------------------------------------- AI - CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/10/15 IN WPC.31057/15 AII: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE
------------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
***************************************************************************** Contempt Case (C) No.270 of 2016 ****************************************************************************** Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2016 JUDGMENT Both sides submit that the directions in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.31057/2015, have been complied with. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln d is brought from outside Kerala and also proof of payment of KVAT, the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner without any conditions.
3. The petitioner produced 8F declaration and Form- 15 delivery note. This was generated after 8.30 a.m. on 14.2.2016. The vehicle was intercepted and seized at 4.30 a.m. C.O.(C) No.328 of 2016 2 on 14.2.2016. Therefore, the respondents suspected that the vehicle containing sand is not from outside the State but from inside the State.
In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the respondents shall produce the mahazar before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer shall conduct necessary enquiry in this matter under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall conclude the proceedings within one month after issuing notice to the petitioner. Based on the enquiry of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner in accordance with law. It is made clear that if the Revenue Divisional Officer finds that the petitionerb