IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2011 / 9TH ASHADHA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 340 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33414/2010 Dated 30/11/2010 .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER --------------------------------------- THOMAS.A.E., S/O.A.T.ENASU, AGED 58 YEARS, ALOOR HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAPPURAM, ERUMAPETTY-VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): 4TH RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- K.CHANDRAN, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER), TAHSILDAR, TALAPPILLY TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, WADAKANCHERY.P.O., THRISSUR. 680 623. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHADEVI THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: COC NO.340/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.33414/10 DT 30/11/2010. ANNEXURE B: CONTEMPT NOTICE DT 3.1.11 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER 17/1/11 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXTS. OF RESPONDENT ANNEXURE R1: TRUE COPY OF MEETING DATED 9/3/11. ANNEXURE R2: TRUE COPY OF MEETING DT 20.3.11. ANNEXURE R3: TRUE COPY MEETING DT 30.3.2011. ANNEXURE R4: TRUE COPY MEETING DATED 4.5.2011. ANNEXURE R5: TRUE COPY MEETING DT 8.6.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Cont.Case(C) NO.340 OF 2011 (S) ======================== Dated this the 30th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by judgment dated 30th of December, 2010. 2. In the context of the complaint of the petitioner that representations made to the 4th respondent to survey the Athani- Puduruthy PWD Road were not attended, the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader were recorded thus:- “According to the learned Government Pleader, the fourth respondent has received the complaints made by the petitioner but, however, as the surveyors available in his office are presently engaged in other survey works, he could not take action on the complaints made. However, it is assured that once the present survey work is completed, the fourth respondent will deploy the survey team to survey the road in question. Recording the above submission and directing that appropriate actions hall be taken in the matter, this writ petition is disposed of.” 3. It is complaining of willful disobedience of the directions in the said judgment, this petition has been filed. 4. Notice was issued and the respondent has entered appearance and an affidavit has been filed. In para 4 of the affidavit, it is stated that after receipt of the certified copy of the COC No. 340/11 :2 : judgment, a meeting was held on 9/3/2011 to discuss the survey and demarcation of the road in question. The minutes of the meeting has been produced as Annexure R1. It is stated that directions were issued to complete the survey and demarcation of the road expeditiously as possible and that the Additional Tahsildar, Thalappily therefore convened the meetings, the minutes of which are Annexures R2 to R5. It is thereafter stated in the affidavit thus; “It was reported by the Head Surveyor in the meeting held on 8/6/2011 that the Survey of the Athani-Puthuruthy Road has been completed and preparation of this sketch and records were going on. The Additional Tahsildar strictly directed the survey team to complete the survey works, preparation of sketch, marking of plots and encroached area by 15/6/2011.” 5. Therefore, it is evident that the survey work has been completed as undertaken by the respondents. 6. In that view of the matter, no case of willful disobedience has been made out justifying initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Contempt petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp