IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 674 of 2010(S) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.17067/2009 Dated 07/07/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MITHESH K.PATEL, S/O.KANTHILAL K.PATEL, AGED 70, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.PATEL CARS PVT (LTD), PIONEER TOWERS, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. P.J.ANTONY, (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN), SECRETARY, MARADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. EPPEN VARGHESE, (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN), CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TRIVANDRUM. 3. RAMANAN, (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN), REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cont.Case(C).No.674 of 2010-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010. Judgment Respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition raised certain objection to certain construction activity of the petitioner. When the matter came to this Court, the judgment dated 7.7.2009 was issued on WP(C).17067/2009 paving way for the petitioner to seek necessary modification to his permit application. When that is placed, the Secretary of the Maradu Grama Panchayat, who was the first respondent in the writ petition, has forwarded it with certain comments to the Chief Town Planner or the Regional Town Planner, as the case may be. The learned counsel for the first respondent states that the copy of the judgment was also forwarded to the Town Planning Officers. This contempt of court case is filed seeking impleadment of those officers in the array of parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner COC674/10 -: 2 :- states that though no contempt will lie against them, it has to be ensured that the earlier judgment is complied in substance. In this premise, I am satisfied that no case of contempt is made out and this contempt of court case is to be closed directing the petitioner to move the Chief Town Planner or the Regional Town Planner, as the case may be, for expeditious disposal of what has been forwarded to them by the Grama Panchayat. I do so. The said officers will ensure that the matter is not prolonged. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/2808