High Court of KeralaCon.Case(C)/422/2015closed

Roshiban N.R. v. Sri.P.S.Raghukumar

2015-04-08Honourable Mr. Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/18TH CHAITHRA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 422 of 2015 (S) ------------------------------ JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20265/2014 DATED 13-08-2014 PETITIONER:

---------- ROSHIBAN N.R., AGED 39 YEARS S/O.LATE RAVENDRAN N.K., R/O.NJALUPPADY HOUSE A.M.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN SRI.M.A.BABY RESPONDENT:

----------- SRI.P.S.RAGHUKUMAR, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) 5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC CENTRE COCHIN-682031. (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) R, BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCIS R BY SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Con.Case(C).No. 422 of 2015 (S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------ ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/08/2014 IN W.P.(C) NO.20265/14.

ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE PETITIONER ON 9/9/2014.

ANNEXURE III: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR.

ANNEXURE IV: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.12.2014. ANNEXURE V: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.12.2014. ANNEXURE VI: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.3.2015. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL ---------------------- TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE Scl.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

------------------------------------- C.C.(C) No.422 of 2015 ------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2015.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner's grievance is that he being harassed by the respondent in connection with the investigation/enquiry pending adjudication proceedings. In fact, petitioner has approached this Court challenging prohibitory order issued by the department and this Court by Annexure I judgment, lifted the detention subject to certain conditions. There is no case in any of the directions has been violated other than complaining about harassment by the investigating officer.

In that view of the matter, I am of the view this is a matter related to the events post judgment and not forming part of the reliefs sought before this Court. Therefore, the petitioner shall take up the matter at appropriate level and with that liberty, the contempt case is closed.

Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Scl.