IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 1243 of 2011(S) ------------------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1564/2011 ) .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN THE W.A. ------------------------------------- AMRITHA RAJU,AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.CHITHRAN,PANAKKALTHARA HOUSE,VENNALA.P.O, KOCHI-682022. BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS NO.1,2 & 5 IN WRIT APPEAL ---------------------------------------------------- 1. PATIL AJITH BAGWATRAO,AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,S/O.BHAGWATRAO PATIL,SECRETARY,KOCHI CORPORATION,ERNAKULAM. 2. C.SANTHA,AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, THE HEALTH OFFICER,OFFICE OF THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN,ERNAKULAM. 3. SURESH.M.M,AGE & FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,HEALTH INSPECTOR,CIRCLE-14, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN,ERNAKULAM/ ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPORATION BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT K. MEERA. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (C)No.1243 OF 2011 IN W.A.N0.1564 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 1st December, 2011 J U D G M E N T MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ. Heard the learned Counsel for the complainant. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent brings to our notice the order dated 21.11.2011 of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10078 of 2011 (arising from SLP No.30140 of 2011), wherein Their Lordships have given the following directions: “1. Respondent No.1 may, if he so chooses, make an application to the competent authority of the Corporation for grant of license to operate the sweet manufacturing unit in the residential area. 2. The Corporation shall decide the said application within a period of two months CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (C)No.1243 Of 2011 2 after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant, respondent No.1 and other interested persons. 3. If respondent No.1 succeeds in getting permission from the Corporation to set up an industrial unit in the residential area, then he shall make an appropriate application to the Board for grant of consent under the Water (Prevention of Pollution and Control) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention of Pollution and Control) Act, 1981. He shall operate the unit only after the requisite consent is granted by the competent authority of the Board. ” 3. From the above directions, we note that the present complainant is given liberty to make an application to the competent authority and the competent authority is also directed to dispose of the application, as observed in the above said direction, within a time limit. 4. In that view of the matter we find no purpose in keeping the proceedings pending. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are closed. CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (C)No.1243 Of 2011 3 The learned Counsel for the complainant also brings to our notice that an application to recall the above order of the Apex Court ( i.e. order dated 21.11.2011in Civil Appeal No.10078 of 2011) is pending before the Apex Court. In case any modification of the said order comes into force, the complainant is at liberty to proceed with in accordance with the modified directions, if any. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk