IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 154 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12924/2004 Dated 23/06/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. C.R.VASUDEVAN, AGED 63, S/O. RAMAN 25,BASANT GARDEN, SION TROMBAY ROAD CHEMBUR, MUMBAI 400071 (CHOKKATHU HOUSE, DIWAN NARAYANAN MENON ROAD THRISSUR) 2. BABY VASUDEVAN, AGED 59, W/O. C.R.VASUDEVAN,25,BASANT GARDEN, SION TROMBAY ROAD CHEMBUR, MUMBAI 400071 (CHOKKATHU HOUSE, DIWAN NARAYANAN MENON ROAD THRISSUR) BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI.DIJO SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SRI.T.BALAKRISHNAN SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES (F) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt of Court Case No.154 of 2009 in W.P.(c).No. 12924 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of February , 2009 JUDGMENT Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, learned senior counsel has addressed me very strenuously. He submitted that Annexure 2 has been passed by the respondent without any regard whatsoever to the directions and observations contained in Annexure 1. I also prima facie feel that the petitioner is having fairly good grounds for challenging Annexure 2. But I am not prepared to say that Annexure 2 amounts to willful disobedience of the directions in Annexure 1. Giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge Annexure 2 by initiating separate proceedings in that regard, I drop the contempt of court case finding that no case for initiation of action for contempt is made out. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv.