IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 175 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.819/2008 Dated 08/01/2008 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WP(C): ------------------------------------------------ SMT. AMMINI BABU, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O. BABU, IYNIMOOTTIL HOUSE, MALEKKAPADI, EDATHALA P.O., ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENTS: 1ST RESPONDENT IN WP(C): ------------------------------------- SMT. MARY LEELA, AGED ABOUT 50, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, SECRETARY, EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EDATHALA NORTH P.O., ALUVA. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt of Court Case No.175 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Persuasive submissions addressed by Sri.P.V.George, counsel for the petitioner notwithstanding, I am not inclined to hold that there is justification for initiating action against the respondent under this jurisdiction. Petitioner may have genuine grievance against Ext.R1(c) order. It is always open to the petitioner to challenge Ext.R1(c) before the statutory appellate forum. Leaving open that remedy which is available to the petitioner I close this contempt of court case since I find that the directions in my judgment have been substantially complied with. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv.