IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1437 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31641/2010 Dated 19/10/2010 .................... PETITIONER: --------------- USHA BHASKARAN, AGED 46 YEARS, 'USHAS', P.O.ELAMPARA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670595. BY ADV. MR. M.RAMESH CHANDER MS. K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT: --------------- MR. BALAKRISHNAN, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BENNY GERVASIS THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cont. Case (C) No. 1437 OF 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 17th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon J. This contempt case arises from the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 31641 of 2010, whereby the respondent/District Collector was directed to identify sensitive and vulnerable polling stations and to permit videography on taking a positive decision in this regard, subject to satisfaction of the cost by the petitioner. 2. Case of the petitioner is that, despite satisfying the requisite fees, the respondent herein did not cause the election to be videographed and that there is wilful disobedience on the part of the respondent which is stated as liable to be proceeded against, invoking the relevant provisions under the Contempt of Court Act. 3. On serving the notice, the respondent has entered appearance and filed an affidavit explaining the facts and figures, asserting that, there is no contumacious act at all and that the respondent has given effect to the order passed by this Court. It is stated that, it was decided to conduct videography of 47 polling stations [particulars of which are given in Annexure R1 (a)]. The rate was fixed after inviting quotations, followed by W.A No. 1437 of 2010 2 negotiations, at ` 2,250/- per day and necessary videographers were also arranged. However, one videographer did not turn up and all the remaining 46 polling booths were covered and the videography was done. The relevant CDs are stated as under the safe custody of the Deputy Collector (Election) of the office of the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of the facts and circumstances explained by the respondent in the affidavit filed as aforesaid, the petitioner does not intend to press the matter any further. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed as not pressed. J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd