IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 233 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.37243/2009 Dated 07/06/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS IN WPC -------------------------------------------- 1. SMT. MARY MICHAEL, KALLIVAYALIL HOUSE, ROSE GARDENS, CHELAD P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. SRI. THOMAS MICHAEL, S/O. LATE MICHAEL, -DO- -DO- 3. SRI. JOSE MICHAEL, S/O. LATE MICHAEL, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KURUVILLA(ALAPPUZHA) RESPONDENT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT IN WPC ------------------------------------ SRI. K.SADANANDAN, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS), THE GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL OFFICER, AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER AND DEBT RELIEF SCHEME, REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI FOR R1 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Contempt Case (C) No.233 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners complain of non-compliance with the directions in judgment dated 7.6.2010. In that judgment, I directed the 3rd respondent in the writ petition to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 in that writ petition expeditiously within the time stipulated. On 4.3.2011, when the matter came up, the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submitted that orders have already been passed, which is in favour of the petitioners. He has subsequently obtained a copy of the same and handed over the same to the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the order has been passed in a very callous manner going by the statements therein, which are contradictory. The learned counsel for the petitioners further points out that from the fact that it was served on the petitioners only after the filing of the contempt case shows that it was prepared after the notice in the contempt C.O.C.No.233/11 2 case was received. 3. Whatever that be, I am not going into the merits of those contentions, insofar as, as directed in the judgment, an order has been passed. If the petitioners have any grievance in respect of the same, it would be open to the petitioners to challenge the same appropriately. With the above observation, this Contempt Case is closed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd C.O.C.No.233/11 3