IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 30 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.38756/2010 DATED 31/12/2010] .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- DR.C.T.ANILAKUMARI, W/O.T.A.ABDURAHIMAN, PRINCIPAL, GOVT. HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS. RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- DR.N.S.VALSALAKUMARI, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE PRINCIPAL & CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVT. HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRANIMUTTAM, P.O.MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 009. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. P. RANI DIOTHIMA. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Cont.Case(C) No.30 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th February, 2011 JUDGMENT It is reported by the counsel on both sides that the direction of this Court in the judgment dated 31.12.2010 in WPC No.38756/2010 has been complied with, though belatedly on 27.1.2011. An application for extension of time filed by the respondent has been allowed. In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed in this Contempt of Court Case. Therefore, this Contempt of Court Case is closed without prejudice to the rights, if any of the petitioner to take further action in the matter, if and when required. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/ COC No.30 of 2011 2 COC No.30 of 2011 3 K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Cont.Case(C) No.30 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st January, 2011 ORDER Though an oral request was made by the Government Pleader on 24.1.2011 to dispense with the personal appearance of the respondent, the same was declined. In spite of the above, the respondent is not present in Court today. 2. The respondent has filed an affidavit in answer to the allegations contained in this petition. According to the COC No.30 of 2011 4 respondent, the service particulars of the petitioner are retained in the office of the Accountant General at Thiruvananthapuram. Her attempts to get the service details have not been successful till date. Therefore, she has issued two certificates to the petitioner in relation to both of her children, on 27.1.2011. The certificates have been issued subject to verification of service records from the Accountant General. 3. The assertion of the respondent that the service particulars of the petitioner are retained in the office of the Accountant General is denied by the counsel for the petitioner. According to the counsel, a copy of the service particulars have been issued to the petitioner by the respondent herself. He seeks time to file an affidavit in reply to the statements of the respondent and to produce necessary documents. The counsel also asserts that the certificates that are stated to have been issued by the respondent have not been received by the petitioner till date. Time is granted to the counsel for the petitioner to file an affidavit and reply. COC No.30 of 2011 5 Post on 8.2.2011. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/