IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1553 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14722/2010 DATED 19/05/2010 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- MAGNUM GLASS WORKS, PLOT NO.28, CHEMICAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHEELA WILLIAM, W/O.XAVIER WILLIAM, AGED 45 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ P.T.ROSAMMA, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.SRI.G.SANJAYAN, GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ----------------------------------------------------- Contempt Case (Civil).No. 1553 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner complains of non-compliance with the direction in Annexure-A judgment. In that judgment I directed as follows: ““3. I am of opinion that just because the petitioner committed a mistake in not obtaining prior permission, petitioner should not be visited with such drastic steps like cancellation of the assignment and the patta, if otherwise they are entitled to permission for reconstitution and continuance of the industry by the reconstituted firm as per the assignment and the patta. Therefore the 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 and pass orders thereon in the light of the observations made above as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, there shall not be any coercive proceedings against the petitioner as apprehended by the petitioner.” Pursuant to the same, Annexure-E order has been admittedly passed, wherein Exhibit P5 application was rejected. Reasons have also been given therein. That being so, if aggrieved by Annexure-E order, the remedy of the petitioner lies in challenging Annexure-E appropriately. Accordingly, without prejudice to that right, this Contempt Case is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE vgs