IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1297 of 2009(S) --------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14776/2009 Dated 29/05/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SURESH BABU.S., S/O. SIVARAMA PANICKER, AGED 54 YEARS,HEAD WARDER, SICA, CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SURENDRAN.R., S/O. RAMALINGAM, AGED 54 YEARS, HEAD WARDER, OPEN JAIL, NETTUKALTHERRI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SASI.G., S/O. GOPALAN NADAR, AGED 52 YEARS, HEAD WARDER, OPEN JAIL, NETTUKALTHERRI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ABRAHAM P.V., S/O. V.T.VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS, HEAD WARDER, OFFICE OF I.G. OF PRISONS, PRISONS HEAD QUARTERS, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. VIJAYAN.S., S/O. K.SANKARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, HEAD WARDER, OFFICE OF I.G.OF PRISONS, PRISONS HEAD QUARTERS, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT ----------------------------- MR.JAYAKUMAR.K, AGE AND FATHERS NAME S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, WORKING AS THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.M.A.ASIF THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (C) No. 1297 of 2009 – S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 18th November, 2009. Judgment Sri.M.A.Asif, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the directions issued in Annexure A1 judgment has been complied with. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners does not dispute the said statement. In the light of the admitted fact that the directions issued by this Court have been complied with, though belatedly, I am of the opinion that no further orders are called for in this contempt case. It is accordingly closed. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Government, it will be open to them to challenge the same in other appropriate proceedings. The petitioners’ contentions on the merits are kept open. P.N. RAVINDRAN Judge vaa