IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1077 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6607/2008 Dated 25/03/2008 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER:- -------------------------------- K.S. MENON,ADVOCATE, AGED 76, S/O KOCHAMMU,HOUSE NO.44/120, 2ND BYE LANE, S.R.M.,ROAD, KOCHI -18. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MENON RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- MANOJ BARAHAM, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008,THE COURT ON 23/09/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== Cont.Case (C) NO. 1077 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T The allegation is that the respondent has disobeyed the directions of this Court in the judgment in WP(C) No.6607/08. That writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent herein, the 2nd respondent in the writ petition, to take note of Ext.P1, in the light of the observations made in the judgment. 2. In the affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that as directed by this Court, a detailed enquiry was conducted and the place in question was also visited on several occasions. According to him, the autorickshaw stand in respect of which the petitioner is complaining is on the opposite side of the petitioner's house, occupying 2.2 meters space of the road, which has a width of 7.8 meters. It is stated that there is no obstruction to the traffic and that the residents who live in closer proximity to the autorickshaw stand in question, viz, Mr. Karunakaran and Dr.Pillai S.M. have no complaint. It is stated that since due enquiry has been conducted in pursuance to the direction in the judgment, there is no warrant for initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Court's Act. COC No.1077/08 :2 : 3. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, where he is seeking to contradict the averments in the counter affidavit. 4. The question is whether there is any willful disobedience of the direction in the judgment of this Court. The judgment only directed that the respondent shall take note of Ext.P1 complaint made by the petitioner in the light of the observations in the judgment. It may be true that the petitioner is unsatisfied with the outcome of the enquiry that has been conducted by the respondent. But, fact remains that as directed, enquiry has been conducted. 5. When the case was heard, the submission made by the petitioner was that he wants to have the vehicle parking in the road prohibited. Since the limited scope of the enquiry in this petition is only as to whether, there is any willful disobedience of the directions in the judgment, it is not possible for the petitioner to seek such a relief in this proceedings. 6. From the affidavit filed by the respondent, it is evident that he has conducted an enquiry as directed in the judgment and hence, I cannot find any willful disobedience of the judgment warranting proceedings against the respondent. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the outcome of COC No.1077/08 :3 : the enquiry, it is for the petitioner to pursue the matter in accordance with law. I do not find any scope for further proceedings in the contempt case and the petition will stand dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp