IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2007 / 14TH ASHADHA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 1006 of 2007(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15165/2006 Dated 10/07/2006 .................... PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. CHACKO A.JOHN, S/O A.A.JOHN, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT ARAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.PUVATHOOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. T.J.JAMES, S/O P.J.JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT PERUMALIL HOUSE, KARIMBA P.O., PALAKKAD. 3. K.SUKESAN, S/O R.KESHAVAN, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANTHA NILAYAM, T.B.ROAD, THATHAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. HARIDAS,(FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(SLAO), COMPETENT AUTHORITY, N.H.47, PALAKKAD. 2. VENUGOPAL,(FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE PROJECT DIRECTOR AND GENERAL MANAGER, N.H. AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THUSHARA BINDU, NO.337, CHANDRANAGAR EXTENSION, NARICODE, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMARAN for R1 BY ADV. SRI. THOMAS ANTONY for R2 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cont. Case (C).No. 1006 OF 2007-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of July, 2007. JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that Exts.P1 and P2 were considered and appropriate decision was taken and forwarded to the competent higher authorities and it was thereafter that Section 3 notification was issued. He further points out that proceedings, following Section 3(a) notification, were also resorted to and in fact, petitioners 1 and 3 had appeared for hearing, following Section 3(a) notification. Under such circumstances, I find no grounds to entertain this contempt of court case. Hence, this contempt of court case is closed, however directing that a copy of the decision taken on Exts.P1 and P2 will be communicated to the petitioners. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, Sha/- JUDGE.