IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 242 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4088/2009 Dated 09/02/2009 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER(S): ---------------------------------- INDHUKALA CHANDRALAL C, D/O. CHANDRALA, AGED 19 YEARS, CHIRATHARA, CMC-6, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ C.CHANDRAN, AGED 55 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) PRINCIPAL , N.S.S. COLLEGE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== Cont.Case(C) NO. 242 OF 2009 (S) ======================= Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The contempt petition is filed alleging disobedience of the directions in the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.4088/09, by which this Court directed that the respondents shall forward Ext.P4 with his recommendations to the University. According to the petitioner, it was this order that is allegedly not complied with by the respondent warranting proceedings against him. 2. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent reveals that copy of the judgment was delivered to him on 17/2/2009 and that on 18/2/2009 itself, the respondents has forwarded Ext.P4 with his recommendations to the University. Copy of the recommendation dated 18/2/2009 is Annexure R(a). 3. From the document thus produced, it is therefore evident that the respondent has complied with the direction in the judgment and the assertion made in the contempt petition to the contrary is factually erroneous. 4. It is also seen that long after forwarding the application as above, the petitioner submitted a proper application in the COC No.242/09 :2 : prescribed form for condonation of shortage of attendance and the copy of the application is Annexure R(c). It is stated that when R(c) application was delivered in the office, the respondent was on leave and the person in charge of office filled up the column provided for recommendation of the Principal and after affixing signature, delivered the application to the petitioner herself for submitting to the University for necessary orders. Acknowledgment has also been given by the petitioner in Ext.R (d), where her endorsement is dated 24/2/2009. Thus not only that the respondent has complied with the direction in the judgment, but even Ext.R(c) application has been attended to by his office with due expedition. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any case for proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act and the contempt petition will therefore stand dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp