IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1533 of 2010(S) ---------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22759/2009 DATED 27/05/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. K.V. RAMAN, S/O. KUNHAMBU KURUP, AGED 60 YEARS, WATCHMAN, SREE VAYATHOOR KALIYAR KSHETHRAM, ULIKKAL. P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. K.P. GOPALAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, AGED 50 YEARS, WATCHMAN, -DO- 3. C.K. GANGADHARAN, S/O. KUTTIAPPA NAMBIAR, AGED 52 YEARS, WATCHMAN, -DO- 4. KUNHIKRISHNA MARAR, S/O. ANANTHAN MARAR, AGED 62 YEARS, “VADYAM”, -DO- 5. P.K. VANAJA, SWEEPER, AGED 48 YEARS, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. K.T. RAVEENDRANATH, TRUSTEE (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SREE VAYATHUR KALIYAR KSHETHRAM, ULIKKAL. P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. A.R. DAMODARAN, CHAIRMAN, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SREE VAYATHUR KALIYAR TEMPLE, ULIKKAL. P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. PREMARAJAN, SECRETARY, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM. P.O, KOZHIKODE. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER. R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN, SC, MALABAR DB. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Cont.Court Case (C) NO. 1533 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T What remains in this contempt petition is the alleged non compliance of direction No.(ii) in the judgment, which reads as under:- (ii) In so far as the claim of the petitioners for payment of arrears till 2005 is concerned, it is directed that respondents 2 and 3 shall verify their records and if the claim is found to be satisfactory, proposal similar to Ext.R2(a) shall be made to the Commissioner of the Board who shall, on receipt of the proposal, take appropriate decision in the matter without any delay. 2. The 2nd respondent submits that he has already forwarded the proposal to the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom and that it is for the Commissioner to issue directions in the matter. The Commissioner is not party in the proceedings, and therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Commissioner, the contempt petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp