IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 57 of 2011(S) ----------------------------- [W.P.(C).No. 17840/2010] PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- SAI SYAM.M.G., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.DR.GOPALA KRISHNAN, SAI JYOTHI, BROTHER MISSION ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. DR.T.K.NARAYANAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, NOW WORKING AS THE REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT-673 635. 2. V.RAJAGOPALAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, NOW WORKING AS CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT-673 635. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== Contempt Case (C).No. 57 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 1 st day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T This contempt case is filed by the petitioner complaining of non compliance with the direction in my judgment dated 9.6.2010 in W.P. (C). No.17840/2010. The direction reads thus: “Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to complete the revaluation process and publish the results of the petitioner's examination for which the petitioner has filed application for revaluation, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, provided, the application is in order in all respects. After the publication of the revaluation results, the petitioner shall be supplied with a photo copies of the answer papers within one week therefrom, provided the petitioner has complied with the procedural formalities thereof.” On 21.1.2011, I passed the following interim order: “The learned standing counsel for the University now hands over a copy of the result of the revaluation as directed by this Court, to the counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that alongwith the communication, photocopies of the answer scripts have also been enclosed. It is also submitted that the said communication has been sent by registered post. Post after a week.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the counsel is yet to get instructions from the petitioner. In the above circumstances, this contempt case is closed recording the submission of the learned standing counsel for the University. If the submission of the standing counsel of the University is found to be incorrect, it would be open to the petitioner to file a petition to restore the contempt case to file. I also record the further submission of the learned standing counsel for c.o.c.57/11 2 the University that if by any chance the petitioner has not received the registered letter, the petitioner can obtain a duplicate copy from the University. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge