IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 316 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.26025/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- GEORGE KURUVILLA, S/O.C.O.KURUVILLA, AGED 50 YEARS, SANKARAMANGALAM, ERAVIPEROOR. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------- JAICK JOSEPH, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED 52 YEARS, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KOTTAYAM-686 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Contempt of Court Case No.316/2011-S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T This Court by Annexure-1 Judgment passed orders directing the third respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation in the writ petition to issue duplicate copies of the original invoices which will be produced before the second respondent therein for encashment. The allegation raised in the Contempt of Court Case is that in spite of the production of the same, there is refusal to disburse the amount. 2. In the affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated that there is no refusal to honour the directions issued by this Court. It is pointed out that the duplicate copy alleged to have been produced is only a triplicate copy and it is not properly authenticated also. 3. In the light of the said stand taken in the affidavit of the respondent, the learned counsel for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation was also heard in the matter. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Corporation that the document is the duplicate copy C.C.C No.316/2011 -:2:- issued in terms of the Judgment. It is also submitted that it is clearly mentioned in the said copy that the duplicate is issued at the request of the customer. It is further submitted that the same is properly authenticated also. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any objection with regard to the invoices produced. The learned Government Pleader explained that it is only to avoid future complications, the insistence was made as averred in the affidavit. 4. In the light of the above, as the position has been further clarified by the learned counsel for the Corporation, there cannot be any objection now for disbursing the amount. The duplicate copy already produced will be will be accepted as proper and the amount will be disbursed expeditiously, at any rate, within one month from today. The Contempt of Court Case is accordingly closed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms