IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 782 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6192/2009 Dated 25/02/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- M/S.PRAKASINI GAS AGENCIES, HP GAS DEALER,CHAKKALIL BLDG.,KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,REP.BY ITS PROPRIETORIX. BINDU SATHEESH, W/O.SATHEESH KUMAR, AGED 40, KOICKAL, MATTOM NORTH, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7 --------------------------------- 1. MR.K.D.BIJU,SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARIYILAKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KARIYILAKULANGARA. 2. SMT.SATHIMOL,SECRETARY, ALL KERALA GAS AGENCIES' EMPLOYEES UNION, CITU DISTRICT COMMITTEE OFFICE BUILDING, WORKING AS CLERICAL STAFF OF M/S.LATHA GAS AGENCIES,(IOC),AMBALAPUZHA. 3. SRI.VINOD,S/O.BHASKARAN, PATTAYATHU KIZHAKATHIL,PATHIYOOR-VILLAGE, KAREELAKULANGARA. 4. SRI.ANSAR,ANSAR MANZIL, CHINGOTE VILLAGE,CHINGOLI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL SRI.A.ANTONY FOR R2, 3 & 4 SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY FOR R2, 3 & 4 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------- Contempt Case (C)No.782 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. Petitioner complains that the interim order dated 25-2-2009 has not been complied with. The respondent has filed an affidavit. To the extent relevant it reads as follows:- “Sufficient police protection is being given to the management and public for the smooth conducting of the business. There is no complaint from the proprietor till date that their supply of gas to the public are interrupted and withheld. Now also they are smoothly running the business without any obstruction from the part of the expelled staff and their associates.” Therefore, we do not find any contumacious conduct on the part of the respondent. The contempt of court case is closed with a direction to the respondent to ensure that the interim order is complied with in letter and spirit. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------- Cont. Case (C)No.782 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 14th August, 2009