IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 579 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33484/2008 Dated 27/11/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) --------------------- MOHANDAS.T, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.K.M.THANKAPPAN ACHARI, SAMBA BHAVAN, THODUPUZHA, NOW WORKING AS RANGE OFFICER, THODUPUZHA RANGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- YALAKI, AGE & FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (ADMINISTRATION), FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.MANU. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Cont. Case (C) No.579 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T By Annexure-III judgment delivered on 27.11.2008 in W.P.(C) No.33484 of 2008, this Court directed the Chief Conservator of Forests (Administration), Forest Head Quarters, Thiruvananthapuram, to consider Ext.P2 representation filed by the petitioner and pass orders thereon, after affording him an opportunity of being heard. The time limit fixed for compliance was three months from the date of production of a copy of the said judgment. It is stated that the respondent has not so far complied with the said judgment. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that as per Order No.E1-18438/2004 dated 4.9.2010, the Chief Conservator of Forests has extended the probation of the petitioner by one year from 29.5.1999 to 28.5.2000 and that the relevant files have been forwarded to the Government for the reason that the Government alone is competent to pass orders, in cases where the probation has to be extended beyond the Contempt Case No.579 of 2010 2 period of one year from the expiry of the period of probation, prescribed in the rules. In the light of the said development and having regard to the fact that the respondent has already complied with the directions issued by this Court on 27.11.2008 in W.P.(C) No.33484 of 2008, I am of the opinion that no further orders are called for in this contempt case. It is accordingly closed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. nj.