IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 960 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4039/2011 Dated 04/03/2011 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.CHANDRADASAN, S/O.APPUTTY, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT VISWA HINDU BHAVAN, CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DR.T.L.JOSE, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHARGE, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, N.I.T.CAMPUS, KOZHIKODE, 673 601. 2. DR.K.KRISHNA MOORTHY, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, N.I.T.CAMPUS, KOZHIKODE, 673 601. BY ADV. SRI. MILLU DANDAPANI. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Con.Case(C).No. 960 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-AI: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4/3/2011 IN W.P.(C)NO.4039/2011 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. ANNEXURE-AII: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF PETITIONER DATED 16/3/2011. ANNEXURE-AIII: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF PETITIONER DATED 26/3/2011 TO THE RESPONDENTS. ANNEXURE-AIV: COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 8/6/2011 OF PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS. ANNEXURE-AV: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/8/2011 IN W.P(C)10738/2011 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. ANNEXURE-AVI: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED 30/6/2011. ANNEXURE-AVII: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12/7/2011 TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C) No. 960 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T It is alleging disobedience of the directions in Annexure A1 judgment in WPC 4039/2011 this contempt case has been filed. What is relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner to sustain this petition is the direction contained in paragraph 5 of the judgment which reads as under: “Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was some deviation from the original design and therefore the respondents should be directed to make available plan and architectural design in order to enable him to complete the finishing work. Counsel for the respondents points out that all necessary documents have already been handed over to the petitioner and therefore, according to her, there is no substance in the grievance. Be that as it may, if any such documents are necessary, it is C.O.(C) No. 960 OF 2011 :2 : open to the petitioner to approach the respondents, in which event, the respondents will make available such of those documents which are necessary for the petitioner to complete the work as agreed between the parties.” 2. It is stated that subsequently the petitioner made repeated representations and reply is given as Annexure AVII. Counsel submits that the document sought for and directed to be given under Annexure A1 were not given that the said conduct of the respondent amounts to willful disobedience of the directions in the judgment. 3. However a reading of paragraph 5 of the judgment which is extracted above itself show that even at that stage the stand taken by the respondents was that the required documents were already given. It was in spite of recording the said submission that this court directed that if any more document is necessary it will be open to the petitioner to make a request and that the necessary C.O.(C) No. 960 OF 2011 :3 : documents will be given. From Annexure AVII and directions in the judgment itself it is obvious that any such documents which are demanded by the petitioner need be given only if the respondents are satisfied that those documents are not already given and are necessary for the execution of the work which was awarded to the petitioner. According to the respondents, all required documents have been given and no further documents are required to be given. Such a decision will not amount to willful disobedience of the directions of Annexure A1 judgment. Hence, this contempt case is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-