IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 1197 of 2007(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32397/2006 Dated 06/12/2006 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER ---------------------------- SURESH KUMAR K.V., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O GOPAL PRASAD, KALLIPAL HOUSE, KATTUKULANGARA P.O., ANANDASHRAM, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT NO.1 ---------------------------- GOVINDAN, AGED 42 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS SECRETARY AJANUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, AJANUR POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MUHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. -------------------------- Cont. Case (C). NO. 1197 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2007 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. Sureshkumar Kodoth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P. Narayanan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The directions of this Court in Annexure 1 judgment had not been complied with by the respondent, though sufficient time has already been granted complains counsel for petitioner. Per contra, counsel for respondent submits that though notice was given to the petitioner to appear on 8.2.07 for hearing, petitioner did not appear. Accordingly, in compliance with the courts direction, an order was passed by the respondent on 9.2.07. 3. A copy of the said order was placed before me by the learned counsel for the respondent. It is seen that under that order, a sum of Rs.21,424/- has been determined as the amount payable to the petitioner. Counsel submits that petitioner was not willing to receive the amount since, according to him, higher amount should have been granted. 4. Considering the Order No.846/07 dated 9.2.07 passed by the respondent, I am of the view that there is no justification for initiating contempt action against the respondent. The respondent will furnish a copy of the order dated 9.2.07 to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner, if so advised, can impugn the said order in appropriate separate proceedings. The contempt case will stand dropped. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,, JUDGE vps