IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1192 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.25132/2007 Dated 11/09/2007 .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------- 1. T.K.KANNAPPAN, S/O.T.S.KANNAN, AGED 56 YEARS, REGIONAL OFFICER, COIRFED, JEW TOWN, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-02. 2. P.K.PEETHAMBARAN, S/O.P.K.KARUNAKARAN, AGED 54 YEARS, DEPUTY MARKETING MANAGER, COIRFED, RBCM UNIT, THUMBOOR. 3. MOHAN.P, S/O.KANARAN, AGED 56 YEARS, DEPUTY MARKETING MANAGER, COIRFED, REGIONAL OFFICE PANICKER ROAD, VELLAYIL.P.O, NADAKKAVU. 4. ALEY LOUIS, S/O.P.C.CHANDY, AGED 59 YRS, ASSISTANT FINANCE MANAGER, COIRFED, RCP UNIT. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.KAVYA P.PRASAD SRI.P.S.ABHISHEK RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. P.A.XAVIER, FATHER'S NAME KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE DIRECTOR OF COIR DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ANIL.K.R, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. NO.679, ALAPPUZHA-688 012. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Case (C) No. 1192 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners allege contempt in respect of Annexure B judgment. By the said judgment the second respondent, namely, the Director of Coir Development was directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 representation in accordance with law and in the light of Ext.P1 judgment within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is stated in the contempt petition that the direction is flouted and Annexure D is that of the Managing Director. It is also complained that flouting the direction in the judgment the decision has been taken not in the light of Ext.P1 judgment. 2. An affidavit has been filed by the present Director of Coir Development. Therein, in paragraphs 4 and 5, it is inter alia stated as follows: “It is humbly submitted that, now it is realized that the spirit of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court was for the Director of Coir Development himself to take a decision on the grievance of the petitioner's highlighted in Ext.P6. The order dated 15.1.2008 though issued with good intentions, may not be fully in tune with the directions of this Hon'ble Court. In COC. 1192/2008. 2 the above circumstances, I most humbly submit that I am ready to pass fresh orders on Ext.P6 representation as directed by this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that, for fair disposal of Ext.P6 representation, it may be necessary to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the Managing Director, Coir Fed.Sri.P.A.Xavier who heard the parties is not the present Director of Coir Development. I am taking steps to issue notice to the parties to pass fresh orders as directed by this Hon'ble Court.” In the light of the stand reflected in paragraphs 4 and 5 I feel that further proceedings need not be taken in contempt. I record the stand of the first respondent. In the light of the stand that he is ready to pass fresh orders as directed by this court after hearing the parties, there is no need for me to proceed further with the contempt of court case. The contempt of court case is closed recording paragraphs 4 and 5 in the counter affidavit. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb