IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 119 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.22321/2002 Dated 05/08/2008 .................... PETITIONER: ------------- JOSEPH, S/O.THOMAS CHANDY, THEVARKKAD HOUSE, SANATHANAPURAM ARIMPOOLPUTHANPURAYIL, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A.J.THOMAS,S/O.JOSEPH,AGED 70 YEARS,AKKAMATTATHIL HOUSE, PALAKKAYAM P.O. MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT: --------------- SHRI.K.P.OUSEPH, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) CUSTODIAN OF ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE LANDS AND CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (BIO DIVERSITY)THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. R. BINDU THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.C.C. No. 119 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J This court by Annexure A3 judgment directed the 5th respondent to pass final orders in the matter within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner has not pleaded whether he has served a copy of the judgment on the respondent and if so when ? But, learned counsel would submit that the judgment was rendered in the presence of the learned Government Pleader representing the respondent and further that field inspection had already started. 2. Commencement of field inspection would show that the respondent has started acting pursuant to the direction of this Court. But, in the absence of any pleading regarding the receipt of the judgment by the respondent, the Contempt Case is not maintainable. 3. Further the learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the copy of the judgment was received by the respondent only on 06.11.08. Therefore, the time limit fixed by this CCC No. 119/09 -:2:- Court will expire only on 05.02.09. In view of this submission, we think that the Contempt Case is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is closed without prejudice to the contention of the petitioner and his right to approach this Court, if any cause of action arises in future. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ttb