IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1376 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22196/2008 Dated 23/07/2008 .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- MADHUSOODANAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANANDA BHAVAN, KURAKKANNI, VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- G.SUDHAKARAN, S/O.(NOT KNOWN), AGED ABOUT 48, WORKING AS SECRETARY, VARKALA MUNICIPALITY, VARKALA P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. SRI.T.S.AJITH KUMAR, SC, MUNICIPALITY THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== Cont.Case(C) NO. 1376 OF 2008 (S) ====================== Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The complaint is regarding non compliance of Annexure 1 judgment in WP(C) No.22196/08. By the judgment, Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner was directed to be considered. According to the petitioner, in pursuance to the judgment, though the parties were heard on 8/9/08, order was not passed and therefore the contempt was filed. 2. The statement filed by the respondent shows that measurement was necessary and therefore as mutually agreed by the parties, the matter was referred to Centre for Earth Science Studies. It is stated that while report was awaited, the petitioner had chosen to file the contempt. In the affidavit that is filed today, it is stated that in view of the fact that the contempt has been filed and notice has been issued by this Court, with the available details, order has been passed. This order is Annexure R1(c). 3. Though this Court is not satisfied with the explanation for the delay that has been offered in the counter affidavit, still fact remains that COC No.1376/08 :2 : an order has been passed by the respondent. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order, the remedy open to the petitioner is to challenge the same. Therefore, the contempt is closed leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies against Annexure R1(c) before appropriate authorities. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp