IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1629 of 2008(S) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.13543/2008 DATED 03/09/2008 ............................. PETITIONERS : ----------------------- 1. A.P.VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR, M/S.ST.GEORGE ENTERPRISES, KARUKUTTY.P.O, KARAYAMPARAMBU, ERNAKULAM. 2. NEENA VARGHESE, W/O.A.P.VARGHESE, PYNADATH AYYAMPILLIL, PULIYANOM.P.O, PEECHANIKAD, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT : ----------------------- K.V.MURALEEDHARAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),SLAO & COMPETENT AUTHORITY, N.H.D.P, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR-20. BY SRI. BASANT BALAJI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------- C.O.C. No. 1629 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Despite the submissions of Mr. Sunil V. Mohammed, learned counsel for petitioner, I am not convinced that a case is made out against the respondent, competent authority of inaction on his part in complying with the direction of this court contained in Annexure A judgment dated 3/09/2008. The directions issued in Annexure A judgment are that Exhibit P3 objections filed by the petitioner will be considered and the petitioner be heard before the respondent passes the award. Petitioners concede that pursuant to Annexure A, the respondent considered Exhibit P3 and heard the petitioners and on the basis of such hearing an award was passed by the respondent. 2. The grievance now voiced is that deviating from that award, without any notice to the petitioners, respondent has now passed a modified award. Passing of this modified award, according to the petitioners, is in disobedience to the directions of Annexure A. 3. From the petitioners' own admission, it is clear that hearing was conducted and award was passed. Even if there is some C.O.C. No. 1629/2008 2 impropriety on the part of the respondent in passing the modified award without hearing the petitioner, it cannot be said that the respondent is guilty of disobeying the directions of this court. Perhaps as submitted by the learned G.P, the modification became necessary, in view of certain mistakes crept into the award originally passed. Even as I decline the request for initiation of action for contempt against the respondent, there will be a direction to the respondent to communicate the award finally passed by him to the petitioners, immediately, i.e within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the determination of compensation, it is always open to them to initiate appropriate fresh proceedings including the statutory proceedings for Arbitration under Article 3(G)(3) of the National Highways Act. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE scm