2025:KER:21275 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CON.CASE(C) NO. 368 OF 2025 PETITIONER/S: SURESH U, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. SETHUMADHAVAN, RESIDING AT 'SURAKSHA', PUTHUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001 BY ADVS. JACOB SEBASTIAN WINSTON K.V ANU JACOB BHARATH KRISHNAN G. ANJANA A.S. RESPONDENT/S: MUSTHAFA KAMAL K.M AGE AND FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (NOTIFIED OFFICER), COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001 Smt.Deepa.V, G.P THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Con Case (C) No.368 of 2025 2 2025:KER:21275 JUDGMENT This Contempt of Court Case is submitted by the petitioner, on the reason that the direction issued by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment, to reconsider the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner was not implemented in letter and spirit. According to him, even though Annexure A2 order was passed as per the direction issued by this Court in Annexure A1, the same was not in tune with the directions issued by this Court and therefore it amounts to contempt of court. 2. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, this Court observed that, as the impugned order clearly shows that the entire property is lying as one single property within four well- demarcated boundaries with compound walls, the Form 5 application has to be considered, by giving the same treatment, which was granted while considering an earlier application submitted by the petitioner in respect of a portion of the said property. It is to be noted in this regard that, earlier application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5 for a small extent of that Con Case (C) No.368 of 2025 3 2025:KER:21275 property was allowed and the said property was removed from the Data Bank. 3. After taking note of the above facts and in the absence of any difference in the nature of the property of the petitioner, the order impugned therein was interfered with by this court in the said judgment, as it was found that the reasoning adopted therein was not proper. It was in these circumstances, the reconsideration of the Form 5 application was ordered by this Court in Annexure A1. However, after carefully going through the contents of Annexure A1 and Annexure A2, I am of the view that, the Annexure A2 cannot be a subject matter of Contempt of Court Case. Rightly or wrongly, the respondent passed an order and the sustainability of the same has to be challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing a separate writ petition. Since no conclusive finding has been arrived at by this court in Anneuxre A1 judgment, declaring that the property of the petitioner is liable to be excluded from the Data Bank, I am of the view that the Annexure A2 order cannot be subjected to Con Case (C) No.368 of 2025 4 2025:KER:21275 proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act. Therefore, this Contempt of Court Case is closed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke his remedies. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE rpk Con Case (C) No.368 of 2025 5 2025:KER:21275 APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 368/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2024 IN W.P.(C) NO. 16103/2023 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT. Annexure-A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERNO.DCPKD/15452/2024-C1 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 21.01.2025.