IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 989 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18178/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------- DR.ANIL KUMAR K.G., S/O.GOPINATHAN K.N., AGED 38 YEARS, ASSISTANT SURGEON, TALUK HOSPITAL, CHIRAYINKEEZHU. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------- DR.JEEVAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Cont.Case (C) NO. 989 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T By Annexure V order dated 15th of June, 2010, this Court directed the respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner with notice to the parties. In this petition, what is complained of is that the order has not been complied with. 2. However, learned Government Pleader submitted that in compliance with the direction, order dated 9/7/2010 was passed. It was stated that though notice was issued to the petitioner on 3/7/10 in the address shown in the writ petition, the notice was returned by the postal authorities with the endorsement 'unclaimed'. 3. Petitioner submits that immediately after the interim order was passed by this Court, petitioner joined at Manjeri, the transferred place, and that, immediately thereupon, by Annexure VI representation dated 19/6/2010, he had informed the respondents that he had joined at Manjeri and a copy of Annexure V interim order was also produced. It is stated that thereafter, he also submitted Annexure VII reminder dated 1/7/2010 to the COC No.989/10 :2 : respondent, furnishing his new address. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there is no justification for not issuing notice to him, in his present address. 4. Thus, it is obvious that prior to the passing of the order dated 9/7/2010, the fact that the petitioner has joined at Manjeri, the transferred place, was made known to the respondent, and despite that, the notice issued to the petitioner was addressed Chirayinkeezhu. It was in such circumstances that the order was passed without hearing the petitioner. 5. In view of the above, learned Government Pleader offers that notice will be issued to the parties to the writ petition afresh and that after hearing them, respondents will pass fresh orders in the matter. 6. Now that the learned Government Pleader has made this offer, this contempt petition is closed leaving it open to the respondents to pass fresh orders in the matter after issuing notice to the parties. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the respondents for complying with the submission made by the COC No.989/10 :3 : learned Government Pleader. Orders shall be passed at any rate within 4 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp