IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1300 of 2010(S) --------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5472/2010 Dated 19/02/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- 1. MATHAI, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 63 YEARS, THANIMOLLATH IKKARAKUDIYIL HOUSE, ARAKKAPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SUDHEER, S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 34 YEARS, MOLEKUDI HOUSE, ARAKKAPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- SMT.BEENA, W/O.VIJAYAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cont. Case (C) No. 1300 OF 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 19th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The writ petition was disposed with the following direction. “The second respondent/competent authority is directed to consider the grievances projected by the petitioner vide Ext. P5, as to the feasibility of the alternate route suggested by them, with reference to Ext. P1 sketch and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all others concerned. The matter shall be finalized as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that till the matter is finalized as above, the steps to draw the line shall be kept in abeyance” The petitioner has approached this Court by filing this contempt matter alleging that the respondent has not complied with the direction, as the matter was considered only by the ADM, who passed the order dated 29.09.2010; a copy of which has been produced as Annexure III. 2. The learned Government Pleader, who entered appearance on behalf of the respondent, with reference to the materials on record submits that, the direction given by this Court was to the '2nd respondent/competent authority' to have the matter and to pass appropriate orders. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, the 'ADM' who has passed COC (C) No. 1300 of 2010 2 Annexure III order is a competent authority to consider and finalize the matter in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, by virtue of the powers vested on him, which not sought to be rebutted. 3. In the said circumstances, there is no violation or disobedience on the part of the respondent in complying with the direction of this Court. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner with regard to the contents of Annexure III, it is for the petitioner to have it challenged by way of appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. The 'Contempt of Court' case is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd