IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 670 of 2009() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.37135/2008 Dated 17/12/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.A.SHERIFFA, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O. A.M.KHADHAR PILLAI, ANJIKATH HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI-33. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SRI. P.VIJAYAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER (FORMERLY SECERETARY OF THE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY) NOW WORKING AS THE SECRETAERY, MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. SRI. REGHURAMAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER THE SECRETARY KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY KALAMASSERY, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-33. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Con.Case NO.(C)670 of 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.08.2008 IN WPC NO.20634/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE-2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2008 IN W.P.(C) NO.37135/08. ANNEXURE-3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2009 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE vgd S.SIRI JAGAN ----------------------------- Cont. Case (C)No.670 of 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Vide Annexure 2 judgment, in respect of the license applied for by the 11th respondent, I directed the Secretary of the Municipality to hear the petitioners as well as respondents 5 to 11 also to be heard. Subsequently the Secretary of the Municipality passed Annexure.3 order. Allegation in the contempt case is that only the petitioner and respondents 7 to 11 have been heard and the 5th respondent and 6th respondent were not heard. Respondents 5 and 6 are the District Medical Officer and the Chief Environmental Engineer. The secretary has no powers to ensure appearance of respondents 5 & 6 for hearing. Further their reports have been obtained. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case I do not think that there is any wilful non-compliance with the direction in the judgment warranting proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Annexure 3 order appropriately, this contempt case is closed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE vgd