IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 308 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18829/2004 Dated 07/12/2007 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- N.V.KALLYANI, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE KEENERI KRISHNAN KUNIYAN, KARIVELLUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 4 IN WPC ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. MADHUKER GUPTHA, (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. K.J.MATHEW, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. P.JAYAKUMAR, SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFPA) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.SOLICITOR BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O.C. No. 308 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner alleges non-compliance with Annexure A judgment which reads thus: “Petitioner approached this Court praying for a direction to the first respondent to disburse the Swathantratha Sainik Samman Pension. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that the matter was duly considered by the State Government and on finding that the petitioner is eligible, the matter has been recommended to the Central Government, and it is for the Central Government to take action. 3. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government submits that they have not received the report said to have been forwarded by the State Government. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: There will be a direction to the State Government to furnish a fresh report to the first respondent within a period of one month from today and thereafter the first respondent shall take appropriate action within a period of another one month, in the light of the recommendation made by the State Government.” An affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent stating that, the State Government has done their part of the order. Petitioner himself has now produced Annexure E order passed by the Government of India. In the above C.O.C. No. 308 of 2009 -2- circumstances, although there is laches on the part of the Union of India in the matter, I am of opinion that, the petitioner should now challenge Annexure E order appropriately. Therefore without prejudice to that right, this contempt case is closed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/