IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 371 of 2009(S) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3346/2009 Dated 02/02/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- K.M.KOYA MOIDEEN, AGED 45, S/O.MOHAMMED, KUNJAVARAN MARAKKARAKATHU HOUSE, PARAVANNA P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.HARIKRISHNAN RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/4TH RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- SRI.M.PADMANABHAN, (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Contempt Case (C) NO. 371 OF 2009 (S) =========================== Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The contempt petition is filed alleging disobedience of Annexure A1 judgment. By this judgment, this court directed the 4th respondent in the writ petition to take necessary action on Ext.P1, a complaint made by the petitioner making allegations against the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. A reading of Annexure A3 shows that the 4th respondent examined the matter and found that the 3rd respondent had not committed anything as alleged by the petitioner warranting further action. 2. On the materials produced, I am not in a position to conclude that the view taken by the 4th respondent is in any manner in violation of the directions in Annexure A1 judgment. Although it is the contention of the petitioner that the view taken in Annexure A3 is wrong, the course available to the petitioner is to establish his contention before appropriate forum. Contempt petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp