IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 796 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ ( AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.3707/2010 ) .................... PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. P.P.SEBASTIAN,S/O.PHILIP AGED 58 YEARS, PAZHAYAMPPILLIL, DIRECTOR, SHANTHIPURAM CHARIATABLE SOCIETY,PERUVA POST KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686610 2. SCARIA VARKEY S/O.VARKEY, AGED 44 YEARS PAZHAYAMPPILLIL(MOOLAMTHURUTHIL)PERUVA POST KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686610 3. JOSE KUTTY MATHEW S/O.MATHEW, AGED 56 KOTHOLIL HOUSE, SHANTHIPURAM, MARANGOLI POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 4. JOSEPH PATHROSE S/O.JOSEPH ,AGED 67 YEARS, PATHIRUNAZHITHADATHIL, SHANTHIPURAM PERUVA POST,KOTTAYAM 5. JOSEPH VARKEY S/O.VARKEY, AGED 54 YEARS, ERANIAKULATHIL, SHANTHIPURAM PERUVA POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686610 BY ADV. SRI.PETER ISAAC RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4: --------------- 1. P.V.VIJAYAKUMARAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER OF TELECOM, BSNL, KOTTAYAM-686601 Con.Case(C).No. 796 of 2011(S) 2. TENSON JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, NJEEZHOOR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686612,NJEEZHOOR P.O BY ADV. SRI.P.C.IYPE,SC,BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD ADV. MR. P.A. AUGUSTINE,SC. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL)No. 796 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C) No. 3707 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 28th November, 2011 J U D G M E N T MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ. Having regard to the affidavit filed by the respondents, we note, as per the directions of the Bench, refunds are given to the complainants herein. The main grievance of the complainants' Counsel is though refunds are granted to the complainants, others have not received the refund . 2. The complainants were parties in the writ petition, wherein they had sought the relief in the individual capacity regarding collection of telephone charges, when the service was not all functioning due to road repair. We cannot consider the same as Public Interest Litigation. If others are aggrieved, it is always open to them to approach this Court. CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL)No. 796 OF 2011 2 With these observations, we close the proceedings in this Contempt case. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk