IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 282 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35277/2008 Dated 01/01/2009 .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------- KOTTUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTUKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT,KOTTUKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------- 1. FR.BERNADINE M.LOUIS, BETHSAIDA HERMITAGE PULINKUDI, CHOWARA-PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. FREDERICK THOMAS,BETHSAIDA HERMITAGE, PULINKUDI CHOWARA-PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- C.C.C. No. 282 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The respondent in the writ petition has filed this contempt case alleging that the petitioner in the writ petition has violated the status quo order in Annexure II judgment by making constructions. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the said allegations. 2. The respondent in the contempt case now submits that subsequently the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has permitted him to approach the High Court again if within a definite time the Coastal Management Authority has not taken a decision in the matter. He points out that subsequently, he has filed WP(C) No.13458/09 in which on 15.06.09 this court had permitted the petitioner to proceed with the constructions. He has also produced a copy of that order before me. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the contempt case would submit that the respondent cannot be absolved from the liability to be proceeded against in the contempt case, since the contempt has already been committed. CCC : 282/09 -:2:- 3. After having heard both sides, I am not inclined to continue the proceedings in the contempt case, insofar as there is no clear evidence available to show that the petitioner had continued constructions, despite the status quo order. Further this Court has now permitted the petitioner to continue the constructions. In the above circumstances, the Contempt Case is closed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb