IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1093 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------------- (WPC.14055/2010 Dated 31/05/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT) .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- T.K.ALIKUTTY,S/O.,MOHAMMED HAJI,AGED 48 YEARS, RAILWAY CONTRACTOR,THONIKKADAVATH HOUSE, ATHAVANAD PO,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- SHAJI,AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE SECRETARY,KUTTIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, R1 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O.C. No. 1093 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains of non-compliance with Annexure 3 order which reads as follows: “The petitioner shall submit an application for the entire balance quantity required by them for completion of the work and the 2nd respondent shall have the matter considered by the appropriate committee and orders passed within three days from the date of receipt of the application.” According to the respondent that order has been complied with. I am not going into that question now, since there is some dispute as to whether the orders passed have been communicated to the petitioner or not. Now it is admitted before me that, 20 tonnes of sand has been allotted to the petitioner. But the problem for the petitioner is that since this is for the railway work and the sand has to be taken through the sides of the railway track, the sand can be transported only in lorries carrying 5 tonnes or less each. But the respondent is prepared to issue only one pass for 20 tonnes and since under law each lorry has to be W.P.(C)No. of 2009 -2- accompanied by a pass for the consignment, that would put the petitioner in serious difficulties with the law. Therefore I directed the respondent to suggest a solution for the same. A suggestion was made by the court that four separate passes of 5 tonnes each be issued to the petitioner per day. The respondent has no objection in doing the same. Accordingly the contempt case is disposed of as follows: The undertaking of the respondent that passes of 5 tonnes each can be issued to the petitioner for four different days on 13.09.2010, 14.09.2010, 15.09.2010 & 16.09.2010 is recorded. The respondent also undertake to consider the claim of the petitioner for the balance 10 tonnes in the first week of the next month. This is also recorded. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/