IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1043 of 2008(S) ---------------------------------------------- THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.31965/2007 DTD.05/11/2007. .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- IRUMBAYIL POULOSE, IRUMABYIL HOUSE, KARUMOM, PULPALLY.P.O, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. E.T. LOHIDHA, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. *ADDL. RESPONDENTS IMPLEADED: 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PULPALLY ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PULPALLY, WAYANAD DT. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B, PULPPALLY. *ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 & ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 21/08/2008 IN C.O.C. NO.1043/2008 (S). R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA, ADDL.R2 & R3 BY MR. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cont.Case(C).No.1043 of 2008-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner alleges violation of the directions contained in the judgment dated 5.11.2007 in WP(C).31965/2007. He filed a suit on the basis of certain allegations against the fourth respondent in the writ petition who, in turn, moved this Court and obtained a judgment requiring the KSEB authorities to move the ADM in relation to certain obstructions to drawal of electric line. While the suit was against the Board only, its authorities acted on the basis of that judgment and gave an OYT connection to the consumer. Controversy, thereafter, arose as to whether the drawal of the line was in violation of the laws as the Board had drawn the lines after the civil court had returned the plaint. Ultimately, as per the judgment on the strength COC.1043/08 -: 2 :- of which this case is filed, the ADM was directed to decide on certain issues. In this contempt of court case, while allegations are made regarding the manner in which certain decisions have been taken, the bunch of materials placed on record by the respondents, as also the petitioner does not disclose a case warranting action under the Contempt of Courts Act, while the rights of parties for any other remedies, including for any rights and liabilities for the alleged civil wrongs are to be left open. For the aforesaid reasons, this contempt of court case is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek remedies, if any, before other authorities and courts. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/250709