IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1755 of 2007(S) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22127/2007 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PAULOSE, SON OF DEVASY, AGED 45 YEARS, PALATTI HOUSE, MOKKANOOR, ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.E.M.MURUGAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 2 IN THE WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. I.G.VENU, AGED 42 YEARS, SON OF GOPALAN, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL STATION, ERNAKULAM. 2. E.G.KURIAKOSE, AGED 76 YEARS, SON OF THOMMAN, NETHARA BHAVAN, KARAKKATTU ROAD, KARITHALA DESOM, ERNAKULAM. R1 - BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN R2 - BY ADV. SRI.K.C.CHARLES THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Case (C) No.1755 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of August 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, C.J. Complainant is before us in this petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 inter alia alleging that the respondents in the Contempt Petition have disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this court in Writ Petition No.22127/07, dated 8.10.2007. 2. The orders passed by this court reads as under: “As long as Ext.P1 remains in force, the connection given to the petitioner pursuant to the interim order of this Court shall not be disturbed. If the said order is recalled, vacated or annulled, the 2nd respondent can disconnect the water supply to the room in the possession of the petitioner. Subject to the above condition, the writ petition is disposed of, making the interim order in favour of the petitioner absolute.” 3. After taking cognizance of this complaint, we had issued notices to the respondents/contemnors. Cont. Case (C) No.1755 OF 2007 :: 2 :: 4. The Police Officer has filed his counter affidavit. The same is taken on record. 5. On the last date of hearing, we had directed the second respondent, namely, the owner of the building, to be present before us for the purpose of framing of charges. 6. An affidavit is filed by respondent. Respondent, in that, has stated as under: “However after much pursuation the said John Kallat has allowed to me to take/draw water connection from the water connection provided to his rented premises and accordingly with great difficulty water connection was provided to the petitioner's room on 21.8.2008.” 7. The affidavit of the respondent is taken on record. 8. In view of the categorical statement made by the second respondent, in our opinion, for the present we need not have to proceed with the contempt petition. Accordingly, we close the contempt petition. Cont. Case (C) No.1755 OF 2007 :: 3 :: 9. However, we reserve liberty to the complainant to approach this court, if, for any reason, the second respondent disconnects the water supply to the petitioner's rented premises. However, it is made clear that this order will be subject to the orders that may be passed by the statutory authority under the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes