IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7254 of 2010(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASHRAF ALI, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED, KALATHIL, NADUVILAPARAMBIL, U.C.COLLEGE.P.O., ALUVA-2. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KARUMALLOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KARUMALLOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, KARUMALLOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARUMALLOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).7254/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT By Ext.P11 judgment, this Court quashed Ext.P10 order issued by the 1st respondent allowing the petitioner to put sheets on the roof of his building and directing that the matter shall be re-considered and a fresh decision shall be taken within 45 days. Ext.P11 judgment was rendered on 8.10.2009. Although based on Ext.P11 judgment, Ext.P12 show cause notice was issued and Ext.P13 reply was submitted by the petitioner, the matter has not been finalized as directed in the judgment. Petitioner submits that the respondents should be directed to finalize the proceedings instead of keeping it pending. As already seen, the proceedings are initiated based on Ext.P11 judgment where a time limit of 45 days was fixed. Therefore, if the respondents have not finalized the proceedings, prima facie it would be a case of violation of directions in Ext.P11 judgment. In such a case, the remedy of the petitioner is W.P.(C).7254/2010 2 not to file another writ petition seeking a further direction but to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the remedies available to the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs