IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2007 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 629 of 2007(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2224/2007 Dated 01/03/2007 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P(C) NO.2224/2007 ------------------------------------------------------------- SHIRILSON MATHEW, MANAGING PARTNER, CHEERANS STRUCTURALS, VH 21, P.P.N.LANE, KURAVAMKONAM, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN WP.CNO.2224/2007 -------------------------------------------- 1. MATHEW C.KUNNUNGAL, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JOSE SYRIAK, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SIVA SANKARAN, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUNDRAM, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD BUILDINGS & LOCAL WORKS, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Con.Case(C).No. 629 of 2007(S) 5. RAMESH, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D. BUILDINGS AND LOCAL WORKS, SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. SUBRAMANIAN POTTY, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. SPECIAL BUILDINGS DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.T.B.REMANI THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.C.(C) No.629/2007 in W.P.(C).No. 2224/2007(S) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2007 J U D G M E N T The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amounts covered by the order have already been paid. He further urges that the petitioner is entitled to interest. That is not the question to be gone into, in this Contempt of Court Case. In view of what is aforesaid, no case of contempt is made out. Case is closed without prejudice to any right whatsoever of the petitioner, in accordance with law, for interest, if any. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge ms