IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1428 of 2010(S) ---------------------------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.2230/2010 DTD. 22/03/2010] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- LIJO JOHNY. K., S/O.K.A.JOHNY, AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, KURUMPILAVU VILLAGE & P.O., THRISSUR TALUK & DISTRICT, THRISSUR-680 564. BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. SRI.PRADEEPKUMAR, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SMT.LATHIKA, W/O.K.K.SURENDRAN, AGED 50 YEARS, CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION & ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. SRI.SHYLESHAN, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER IRRIGATION CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 4. SRI.V.SUBASH, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOURT 50 YEARS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ADDITIONAL IRRIGATION DIVISION THRISSUR. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O.(C) No. 1428 of 2010-S - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT Alleging violation of the directions in Annexure A1 judgment, this C.C.C. is filed. The direction therein was to consider Ext.P5 after hearing the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 2. It is alleged in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the petition that the above directions have not been complied with by the respondent. It is alleged that initially the respondent sent Annexue A2 letter which is only an unauthorized reply which was answered by the petitioner as per Annexure A3. The petitioner relies upon the further communications also to show that he did not comply with the directions contained in the judgment. 2. The respondent has filed an affidavit as well as additional affidavit. It is evident from the affidavit that after the receipt of the judgment a hearing notice was issued to the petitioner for hearing on 19.4.2010. He was heard on 19.4.2010. The petitioner repeated his request made in Ext.P5. The respondent has explained that in Annexure A2 he happened to use certain words for refusing his request and thoset words were used only due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of the coc 1428/2010 2 respondent which was not deliberate. 3. After the filing of the CCC, another proceedings have been issued as per Annexure R3(a) rejecting the request of the petitioner to make payment to the tune of Rs.67,77,881/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons stated for the rejection of the request cannot be supported. He was actually prevented from continuing the work which aspect has been referred to in the judgment also. 5. In the judgment this Court has not considered any of the contentious issues on merits obviously, as the petitioner wanted only a consideration of the representation Ext.P5. Therefore, evidently, it is a matter wherein the direction was issued to the respondent to take a decision on Ext.P5 representation. Whether the decision taken by the respondent as per Ext.R3(a) and the proceedings as per Annexure A2 are correct or not is a matter which the petitioner will have to agitate before the appropriate forum or before this Court in a writ petition. I am not satisfied that there is willful violation of the directions issued by this Court. Leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to challenge Annexure A2 and Ext.R3(a) in appropriate proceedings, the CCC is closed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) coc 1428/2010 3 kav/