IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 93 of 2009(S) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24321/2008 Dated 12/08/2008 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------------------------- A.K.DHANAPALAN, S/O.LATE A.K.KRISHNAN AGED 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT THARAYIL HOUSE, PATHIRAPPALLY P.O. KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE, ARYAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND SURVEY, ALAPPUZHA. 2. AMINA BAI (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SECRETARY, ARYAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT PATHIRAPPALLY P.O. ALAPPUZHA-688521. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.P.P.SHAJUDEEN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== Cont.Case(C) NO. 93 OF 2009 (S) ==================== Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T This petition is filed alleging disobedience of the judgment in WP(C) No.24321/08. By the judgment, the 3rd respondent was directed to submit his report to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent was directed to consider the application of the petitioner for building permit. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that report has been submitted by the 3rd respondent. 3. Counsel for the 1st respondent enters appearance and submits that the application of the petitioner was considered and by resolution dated 20/1/2009, the application has been rejected. It is also stated that the resolution has been communicated to the petitioner on 27/1/2009. Though the counsel for the petitioner disputed about the service of the resolution, counsel for the 1st respondent has served a copy of the resolution to him in open court. In view of the above, the contempt of court case is closed leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the matter, if he is aggrieved by the said decision. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp