IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 951 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9940/2011 Dated 06/08/2009 .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS 2,3,4 & 7: --------------- 1. ANNAMMA MATHEW,W/O.MATHEW,AGED 43 YEARS, KOIKALATHU HOUSE,NADUKANI,CHENGARA P.O, MALAYALAPUZHA,PATHANAMTHITTA 689 664. 2. SISILY MATHEW,W/O.MATHEW,AGED 44 YEARS, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,NADUKANI,CHENGARA P.O, MALAYALAPUZHA,PATHANAMTHITTA 689 664. 3. ANNAMMA MATHEW,W/O.P.V.MATHEW,AGED 42 YEARS, PARACKAMANNIL HOUSE,NADUKANI,CHENGARA P.O, MALAYALAPUZHA,PATHANAMTHITTA 689 664. 4. K.J.SAMUEL,S/O.JOHN,AGED 42 YEARS, KOIKALATHU HOUSE,NADUKANI,CHENGARA P.O, MALAYALAPUZHA,PATHANAMTHITTA 689 664. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SRI.SREEDHARAN NAIR,FATHERS NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS MANAGING DIRECTOR MALLELLIL INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD, ATTACHACKAL P.O, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 692. 2. D.SUMA DEVI, FATHERS NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS MALLELIL HOUSE, ATTACHACKAL P.O, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 692. 3. HARI BALAN, FATHERS NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,SECRETARY, KONNI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 692. 4. SHEEBA, FATHERS NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, MAKKAMKUNNU,PATHANAMTHITTA 689 001. 5. JYOTHISH KUMAR FATHERS NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, SENIOR GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, REVENUE TOWER, ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 001. 6. K.SUNDARESAN, FATHERS NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES C2-IIIRD FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX,KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682 030. 7. T.VENUGOPAL, FATHERS NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 001. ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R3 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R3 R4 BY ADV SHRI. M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS R5 TO 7 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. BENNY GERVACIS THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CONT. CASE 951/2011 ANNEXURES PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 6.8.2009 IN W.P(C) NO: 9940/2009 ANNEXURE II -DO- OF THE ORDER DT. 3.11.20-09 IN APPEAL NO: 805/2009 ANNEXURE III -DO- OF THE ORDER DT. 1.2.2010 IN W.P(C) NO: 31807/2009 ANNEXURE IV: -DO- OF THE NOTICE DT. 7.3.2011 TOGETHER WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD ANNEXURE V: -DO- OF THE NEWS REPORT WHICH APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT. 17.7.2011 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL jj /TRUE COPY/ P.S TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ Cont. Case (Civil)NO: 951 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd September, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. This contempt of court case is filed alleging violation of directions contained in Annexure I Division Bench judgment. At the admission stage Adv. Sheela Devi took notice for respondents 1 and 2 and standing counsel took notice for respondents 3 and 4. Both sides agree that at present another writ petition is pending before this Court pertaining to the functioning of the same quarry. A learned Single Judge under interim orders in W.P(C) 31807/2009 permitted the quarry to be run by respondents 1 and 2. In view of the subsequent developments and pendency of the writ petition in the same matter we feel that the contempt of court case is premature. We accordingly close the same leaving freedom to the petitioners to file fresh contempt of court case if required after disposal of the above writ petition. As of now if the petitioners allege any contempt of the interim order passed by Single Judge, petitioners can Cont. Case No: 951/2011 2 approach the learned Single Judge. It is up to the petitioners to file applications in this regard. Contempt of court case is closed as above with the above observations. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj Cont. Case No: 951/2011 3