IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1003 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2494/2006 Dated 24/03/2006 .................... PETITIONER/2ND PETITIONER : ---------------------------------- S.D.SREEKUMAR AGED 45, S/O.R.DAMODARAN,OVERSEER GRADE-I MATSYAFED, HEAD OFFICE, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES LTD., KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD PO. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SREEKUMAR SADANAM, VEDIVACHAN KOVIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.RAJAN SRI.S.ARUN RAJ SMT.SHIBI. K.P. RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ P.KESAVAN NAIR, AGED 53, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATSYAFED AND CONVENOR, SELECTION COMMITTEE, MYTSYAFED, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES LTD.,HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYA MOHANAN, SC, MATSYAFED. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont.Case ( C ) No.1003 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 13th August, 2008 JUDGMENT The accusation of the petitioner who was the 2nd petitioner, against the respondent is that he is guilty of wilful disobedience for not complying with the directions in Annexure I judgment. A detailed affidavit has been filed by the respondent denying the accusations to which a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. Annexure V dated 12.12.2006 is the order issued by the respondent in purported compliance of Annexure I judgment. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides a period of limitation. Section 20 in strict sense may not apply to the present case in view of the Full Bench decision of this court in Mayilswami v. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KLT 178). Even then, having gone through Annexure V, I am of the view that it cannot be said that the respondent is guilty of wilful disobedience. It is always open to the petitioner to seek redressal of Annexure V by initiating appropriating fresh proceedings. The Contempt of Court Case will stand closed. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE