IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2007 / 28TH PAUSHA 1928 Con.Case(C).No. 117 of 2007(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.12682/1999 Dated 29/03/2006 .................... : PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- T.A. KAMALAM, D/O.LATE T.K.AYYAPPAN, THIRUVANCHIKULAM HOUSE, P.O. VELUPPADAM, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT NO.4 IN OP: ----------------------------------- SRI.K. DIVAKARAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- C.O.C.NO.117 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this 18th day of January, 2007 JUDGMENT Even though Sri.M.P.Krishnan Nair the learned counsel for the petitioner was very persuasive in his submission that the direction in Annexure A judgment have not been faithfully and meaningfully complied with, I am unable to agree with him. True, the petitioner who seems to be a Malayali women unlike the other parties whose cases are also considered by the Chief Engineer in Annexure A2 seems to have a reason for being aggrieved by Annexure A2. But the petitioner's remedy according to me is not to initiate action under the Contempt of Courts Act but to challenge Annexure A2 separately. It is always open to the petitioner to produce those documents which would establish her claim that she had put in service and to take steps for production of the documents which are in the custody of the petitioner. Giving that liberty to the petitioner this Contempt of court Case will stand closed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Judge WPC No 2 dpk