IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 337 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36755/2010 Dated 09/12/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S):PETITIONER ---------------------------------- D.SUNDARESAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.DIVAKARAN, CHITHRA BHAVAN, K.K.N.NAGAR, KIZHE KALLEYAM, KARAKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-43. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ P.R.SAJIKUMAR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,KERALA STATE RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,TC-28/885,CSI BUILDING, PULIMOODU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.N.G.SURESH BABU THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Contempt Case(C) No. 337 of 2011 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.36755/2010. That writ petition was disposed of by Annexure-V judgment, directing the first respondent therein, the respondent herein, to decide on the representation made by the petitioner, in terms of clause 24.1 of the agreement between the parties, he being the designated competent authority. When the petitioner made Annexure- VI representation, complaining that decision has not been taken on his representation, the respondent issued Annexure-VII, enclosing Annexure-VIII, and stating that by Annexure-VIII a decision has already been communicated to the petitioner. Complaining that Annexure-VIII is not an order passed in compliance with the directions in the judgment, this petition has been filed. 2. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, COC No.337/2011 : 2 : contending that, by Annexure-VIII, the directions in the judgment stand complied with. 3. It is a fact that Annexure-VIII order has been issued by the respondent in the purported compliance of the directions in the judgment. Even if it is assumed that the order is bad for various reasons, as contended by the counsel for the petitioner, since the direction in the judgment was only to consider the claim of the petitioner and since such a consideration has already been done, it cannot be said that there is any wilful disobedience of the directions in the judgment, which alone will justify proceeding with the contempt of court case. On facts, I am not able to enter into any such finding to proceed further against the petitioner. Therefore, the Contempt Case is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek his remedies against Annexure-VIII before the empowered committee as provided in the agreement between the parties. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/26.05