IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 593 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9283/2010 Dated 19/03/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- K.THOMAS, S/O. KOCHUMMINI NADAR, AGED 53 YEARS, S.R.BHAVAN, KUZHINJAVILA, NAGAPURAM CENTRE, KARUMKULAM, PUTHIYATHURA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM DISTRI CT. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): /1ST RESPONDENT --------------- RAJENDRAN, FATHER'S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY,KARUMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARUMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PUTHIYATHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- COC No.593 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Allegation in the contempt of court case is that the direction in Annexure-I judgment dated 19/03/2010 in WP(C) No.9283/2010 requiring that orders be passed on the representation made by the petitioner was not complied with. 2. It is now seen that pursuant to Annexure-I judgment, Annexure-II notice was issued by the then Secretary of the Panchayat. Thereafter on 29/04/2010, the respondent herein assumed charge as the Secretary of the Panchayat and he issued Annexure R3 notice dated 30/04/2010 to the 3rd respondent in the writ petition informing him that steps will be taken for removal of the unauthorised construction. It is stated that aggrieved by Annexure R3, the 3rd respondent filed Appeal No.414/2010 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and the Tribunal by Annexure R4 order dated 15/06/2010 set aside Annexure R3, and directed the Panchayat to pass fresh orders. COC No.593/2010 -2- 3. In the meanwhile, on 09/06/2010, the respondent herein was transferred and was relieved on 10/06/2010. In the circumstances, the only question is whether the respondent herein had taken steps to comply with the directions in the Annuxure-I judgment while he was discharging the duties of Secretary of the Karumkulam Panchayat. 4. From the facts, it can be seen that he had initiated action by Annexure R3, which was the subject matter of Appeal No.414/2010 before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal had also passed an order of stay. Subsequently the Tribunal has set aside Annexure R3. Thus, it is obvious that the respondent did take action in pursuance to the directions in Annexure 1 judgment. 5. Therefore, I do not find any reason to proceed further with the contempt of court case against the respondent. Needless to say that it will be open to the petitioner to seek his remedies against the Panchayat if there is any violation of the directions in Annexure I judgment. By order dated 13/07/2010, taking note of the fact that despite service of notice the respondent did not appear before this COC No.593/2010 -3- Court, non-bailable warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against him. He has now filed I.A.No.335/2010 explaining reasons for his non-appearance before this Court. Having regard to the explanation thus offered, order dated 13/07/2010 ordering non- bailable warrant of arrest is recalled. This contempt of court case is closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg