IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 7 of 2011(S) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.30889/2010 Dated 18/10/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) ------------------------------------ NATESAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE(PATTUPARAMBIL), MOSQUE ROAD, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) ---------------------------------------- MR.MANOJ ABRAHAM, AGED ...... FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------- CO(C).NO. 7 OF 2011(S) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Antony Dominic, J Petitioner herein filed Writ Petition No.30889/2010, which was disposed of by judgment dated 18th October, 2010 directing the respondent herein to pass orders on Ext.P1, a complaint purported to be made under Rule 20 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2009. Complaining that orders were not passed in compliance with the direction in the judgment, the Contempt Petition was filed. 2. Along with the affidavit filed respondent has produced order dated 14.1.2011 passed in compliance with the directions in the judgment. The affidavit and the order show that on the directions of the respondent, the Circle Inspector of Police conducted enquiries and submitted a report. The affidavit also shows that despite being directed to appear before the respondent, petitioner did not appear for hearing. By this order the respondent has held that there is no law and order situation CO(C).No.7/2011 :2 : existing and that there is no threat to the life and property of the petitioner. Now that respondent has passed an order in compliance with the directions in the judgment and has also tendered apology for the delay in passing the order, we see no reason to proceed further with this Petition filed under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order now passed, the remedy available to the petitioner is to seek appropriate relief against that order. With that liberty, the Contempt Petition is closed. ( J. CHELAMESWAR) CHIEF JUSTICE (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/