IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 354 of 2010(S) -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26919/2009 Dated 04/11/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. ROSY, W/O.LATE DAVID, AGED 77 YEARS, KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE, NARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. JOSEPH,S/O.LATE DAVID, AGED 53 YEARS, KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE NARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- DR.M.BEENA, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN). BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cont.Case(C).No.354 of 2010-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010. Judgment The judgment on the basis of which this contempt of court case is filed contains only a direction to consider the suggestion of the petitioners that they have an alternate site to be offered in lieu of what is under acquisition for a Tsunami Rehabilitation Project. The District Collector is stated to have considered that suggestion. However, the suggestion has been rejected. The correctness or otherwise of that decision and the reason for any such decision are not justiciable in contempt of court case. I do not find that there is any wilful neglect or default in complying the directions contained in the judgment dated 4.11.2009 in W.P.(C).26919/2009, Therefore, without prejudice to the right, if any, of the petitioners to challenge the decision of the District Collector refusing to accede to COC.354/10 -: 2 :- their request regarding the alternate site, this contempt of court case is closed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/2503