IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 506 of 2009(S) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.174/2009 Dated 06/02/2009 .................... PETITIONER: -------------- A.IBRAHIM KUTTY, S/O. ALIKUNJU, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALIYATH HOUSE, PANMANA VILLAGE, PUTHENCHANTHA P.O., CHAVARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. K. JAYAKUMAR, S/O. M. KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P. LATHIKA, W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION & GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, TRIVANDRUM & CONVENER, CHIEF ENGINEERS COMMITTEE FOR PRE-QUALIFICATION OF CONTRACTORS 3. K. BALACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION PROJECT CIRCLE, KANNUR-2. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED FAZIL M.P. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ Cont. Case (C) No. 506 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. This contempt case is filed alleging that Annexure A4 letter is not one in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment. By Annexure A1 judgment a Division Bench of this Court directed the second respondent in W.A.No.174 of 2009, namely the Chief Engineers Committee for pre-qualification of contractors, represented by its Convenor and Chief Engineer, Irrigation and General Administration Department to consider Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner and to take a decision thereon before taking a final decision regarding the award of contract. As directed by this Court, the Committee considered the petitioner's representation and took a decision adverse to him. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner by Annexure A4 letter dated 7.3.2009. This Contempt Case was thereupon filed on 16.3.2009. It is contended that though in the discussions, the majority had decided in favour of the petitioner the final decision was against him. Cont. Case No. 506 of 2009 2 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that challenging Annexure A4 order the petitioner has already filed a writ petition and it is pending. On going trough the pleadings and after hearing the submissions made at the Bar, we are satisfied that the petitioner has not made out a case warranting initiation of action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. By Annexure A1 judgment this Court had only directed the respondent to take a decision on the petitioner's representation. A decision was accordingly taken. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision his remedy lies in challenging the same. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already taken steps in that regard, we do not find any reason to proceed further with this contempt case. It is accordingly closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies in other appropriate proceedings. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns