IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1015 of 2008(S) ---------------------------------------------- (W.P.(C). NO. 12942/2007 DATED 30/11/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT) .......... PETITIONER/ PETITIONER IN W.P.(C): ------------------------------------------------------ LAKSHMI DEVI.K.P. W/O.RAMA VARMA R.THAMPURAN PRATHIBHA, LAYAM ROAD, COCHIN-11. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH (K). RESPONDENT/ 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C): ------------------------------------------------------------------ MYDHILY, THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, S.C. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cont.Case(C).No.1015 of 2008-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.On 30-11-2007, this Court issued Annexure I judgment directing the second respondent in the writ petition to ensure that Board's directions are scrupulously complied with or otherwise, to take appropriate action in accordance with law. That judgment was issued because the second respondent Chief Environmental Engineer had come on record stating that the Pollution Control Board had issued direction to the third respondent to shift the cattle farm from the residential area. Alleged breach of the directions in that judgment has led to the institution of this contempt of court case against the Chief Environmental Engineer. 2.The respondent has placed an affidavit in this COC1015/2008 -: 2 :- case stating that Annexure R(a) order was issued for shifting and Annexure R(b) communication was given to the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalamassery for enforcement of that order. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits on instructions that the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalamassery is yet to receive Annexure R(b). However, the affidavit of the respondent also states that she again visited the site and has found that the third respondent in the writ petition had shifted the cattle to another shed around 5 meters away from the old shed and that there are 13 numbers of cattle at the time of the inspection. Under the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be found that the respondent had committed wilful disobedience of any direction of this Court, however that the said respondent and the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalamassery and any other appropriate authority empowered in that regard will have to take effective action for prevention of nuisance and also to ensure obedience of the COC1015/2008 -: 3 :- pollution control laws. I do not find any ground to initiate any action for contempt against the respondent. This contempt of court case is hence closed, however ordering that the respondent will serve a copy of Annexure R(b) on the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalamassery. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/220808