IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1141 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.8615/2009 Dated 19/08/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. A.P.VARGHESE, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. PAULOSE, PROPRIETOR, M/S. ST.GEORGE ENTERPRISES, KARUKUTTY P.O., KARARAYAMPARAMBU, ERNAKULAM. 2. NEENA VARGHESE, W/O. A.P.VARGHESE, AGED 45, PYNADATH AYYAMPILLIL, PULIYANAM P.O., PEECHANIKAD, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PUSHPAVALLY, AGE & FATHER'S NAME AND ADDRESS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) SLAO & COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NHDP, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR-20. 2. RAMANATHAN, AGE & FATHER'S NAME AND ADDRESS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR-20. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY,SC,NH FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI SANTHOSH RAJA FOR R1 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Contempt of Court Case No.1141/2010-S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the National Highways Authority of India. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that there was no action on the part of the officers of the State as alleged in the Contempt of Court Case as it was for the National Highways Authority of India to effect the demolition for the widening of the road in question. The learned counsel appearing for the National Highways Authority of India also submitted that the demolition is only in respect of the portion which they have acquired and have taken possession. It is submitted that the petitioners have not so far removed the machinery which is kept in the premises. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no inventory has been prepared by the second respondent and the demolition effected is also not in a proper manner. These are matters for the petitioners, if so advised, to raise before appropriate authorities or in the pending writ petition. Without prejudice to this, the Contempt of Court Case is closed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms