Non-compliance with court directions only constitutes contempt if there is willful denial; mere remand signifies compliance.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner alleges that Annexure A1 judgment has not been complied with.

2. As per the direction in Annexure A1, the 2^nd respondent therein was directed to consider the matter on merits after adverting to Ext.P11 report of the Village Officer and Ext.P14 judgment of this Court.

3. Annexure A2 is the order passed pursuant to the said direction. On a perusal of Annexure A2, it is noticed that the respondent has remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for a fresh decision. There is a reference to the report of the Village Officer as well as the decision of the Court in Rajalakshmi N. v. State of Kerala [2025 :KER:61360].

4. Though petitioner contends that there was no consideration on merits as directed, on a perusal of Annexure A2 order, it is noticed that the authority had considered the factual circumstances arising in the case in several paragraphs and at the final stage, after the sub heading 'order', he has directed the matter to be reconsidered by the Tahsildar. According to me, it cannot be said that this is not an order on merits. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of remand, it is upon him to initiate appropriate proceedings challenging the same. Contempt will arise only when there is a wilful denial to comply with the directions.

Since an order has been passed as directed, I find no reason to entertain this contempt. Accordingly, this contempt case is dismissed.

Sd/-