IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1250 of 2010(S) -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29590/2010 Dated 24/09/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- M.K.ZUBAIR ALI, S/O.KUNJALI, AGED 57 YEARS, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SAYED EBRAHIM BADSHAH, HAJ-UMRAH SERVICE, OPP.CENTRAL JUMA MASJID, TRIPRAYAR P.O., NATTIKA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.SAJU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.2: ------------------------------------------------------- RAJEEV K.CHANDER, DEPUTY SECRETARY(HAJ) MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI TOL:011026111781/82/FAX 83. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Cont.Case(C) NO. 1250 OF 2010 (S) ========================= Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T By Annexure 3 judgment in WP(C) No.29590/10, the petitioner was allowed to make a representation to the respondent for increasing the Haj quota seats alloted to him and the respondent was ordered to consider the same. It is complaining of disobedience of the aforesaid direction, the contempt petition has been filed. 2. Along with the statement filed on behalf of the respondent, order dated 6/10/2010 has been produced as Annexure R1 and the respondent submit that the directions in the judgment have been complied with. 3. Although the petitioner accepts that Annexure R1 has been passed by the respondent, counsel submits that the stand taken in Ext.R1 is factually incorrect and that the endeavour of the respondent was to deny additional seats to the petitioner. 4. A reading of the judgment of this Court shows that all that the respondent was directed was to pass order on the representation to be filed by the petitioner. It is accordingly that COC No. 1250/10 :2 : Annexure R1 has been passed. If the order is erroneous or the statements in Annexure R1 are factually incorrect, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies against Ext.R1. Respondent having passed Annexure R1, has complied with the judgment, and therefore, there cannot be any proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. In that view of the matter, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies against Annexure R1, the contempt petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp