IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1281 of 2009(S) ---------------------------------------------- AGAINST JUDGMENT/ORDER IN WP(C) NO. 23708/2009 DATED 20/08/2009. .............. PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN THE WRIT PETITION -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.V. DAMODARAN NAMBIAR, S/O.KANNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, MUNDAYAD DESOM, TEMPLE LANE P.O., MUNDAYAD, KANNUR – 670 597. 2. K. PAVITHRAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, MUNDAYAD DESOM, MANASAROVAR, P.O.MUNDAYAD, KANNUR – 670 597. 3. V.V. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, MUNDAYAD DESOM, SOUPARNIKA, P.O.MUNDAYAD, KANNUR – 670 597. 4. M.P. SAHADEVAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, MUNDAYAD DESOM, NAVANEETH, P.O.MUNDAYAD, KANNUR – 670 597. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA, MR.GOPAKUMAR. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN THE WRIT PETITION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAL GUPTA, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, G-586, SECTOR 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. MR.THOMAS ANTONY. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cont.Case(C).No.1281 of 2009-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the respondent states that following the judgment, the representations of the petitioners were placed before the competent authorities and technical bodies and ultimately, decision was taken and such communication was received by the petitioners on 28.10.2009, which is the day immediately succeeding the day of institution of this case. There is no reason why this Court should disbelieve the statement made through learned counsel for the respondent. Recording that submission, this contempt of court case is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to move afresh, if matters are otherwise. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/141109