IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 987 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36612/2008 Dated 02/06/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- M/S.PARAYIL GRANULAR INDUSTRIES, PERUMBAIKADU P.O.,KUMARANALLOOR,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,THOMAS P.KURIAKOSE. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. VASANTHIKUTTY, AGED AND NAME OF THE HUSBAND ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,WORKING AS PRESIDENT,KUMARANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,OFFICE OF THE KUMARANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,KUMARANALLOOR P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THANKAMONY, AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,WORKING AS SECRETARY,KUMARANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,OFFICE OF THE KUMARANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,KUMARANALLOOR P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. ALICE JOSEPH, AGE AND NAME OF THE HUSBAND ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,MEMBER,KUMARANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,OFFICE OF THE KUMARANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,KUMARANALLOOR P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. K.A.LATHEEF, AGED AND NAME OF THE FATHER ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,MEMBER,KUMARANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,OFFICE OF THE KUMARANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,KUMARANALLOOR P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.G.ADITYA SHENOY THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Cont. Case(C).No.987 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Personal appearance is dispensed with. Counter affidavits are placed on record by the respondents. I am not impressed with the submission that the president and the members of the Panchayat cannot be also personally liable because they were not personally parties to the writ petition. Kumaranalloor Grama Panchayat committee was a party. The Grama Panchayat itself is a party to the writ petition. However, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 states that on 7.7.2009, a writ appeal has been filed and the matter is yet to be brought up to the Panchayat for rectifying defects. Under these circumstances, I do to find any ground to continue with the contempt case as of now since Annexure-G resolution includes the decision of the Panchayat, also to file appeal against Annexure-A judgment. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to apply for re-opening of this case, if it becomes necessary following the decision of the writ appeal, this case is closed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.28/8.