IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1537 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.24784/07) PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- ISSAC T.CHERIAN,AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.CHERIYAN,R/AT THEKKUMMEL HOUSE,PAYIPRA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE 686 673,REP.BY HIS P/A.H. AND FATHER CHERIAN,AGED 82 YEARS,S/O.ISSAC,THEKKUMMEL HOUSE, PAYIPRA,MULAVOOR VILLAGE 686 673. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------- JOY ABRAHAM,S/O.ABRAHAM,AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA PWD ,KSTP DIVISION OFFICE, REST HOUSE, COMPOUND,MUVATTUPUZHA 686 661. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Contempt of Court Case NO. 1537 OF 2010 ============================ Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T WP(C) No.24784/07 was filed complaining of the iron fencing fixed in front of the petitioner's commercial building, which according to the petitioner obstructed vehicular access to the building. When the case was heard, respondent justified the iron fencing on the ground that the building is in a traffic junction and fencing was necessitated for safety of the pedestrians. However, taking note of the fact that there was complete obstruction, this Court directed that the petitioner can move the respondents for appropriate modification of the fencing. The complaint now raised is that representation was filed, but the fencing has not been removed. 2. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions and submits that the fencing cannot be removed totally as it can be dangerous to the pedestrians for the reason that the vehicles can run into the petitioner's compound. It is stated that in compliance with the judgment, to avoid inconvenience to the petitioner, the fencing has been modified and the place is made CO(C) No. 1537/10 :2 : accessible to vehicles. Photographs produced by the learned Government Pleader also shows that a mini lorry is parked in the petitioner's compound. Thus, it is obvious that the situation now is that the place is not inaccessible as it was, at the time when the writ petition was filed. 3. It may be true that situation is not satisfactory to the petitioner, however, that cannot make out a case of disobedience of the judgment calling for initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, I do not find any reason to proceed against the respondents. But at the same time, I clarify that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner moving the respondent for further modification of the fencing. Contempt petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp