IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 1534 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.28929/2008 Dated 30/09/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WPC: --------------------------------- M.HANEEFA, KUREEKATTIL HOUSE, CHITTUR WARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC: ---------------------------------- 1. SAKEER HUSSAIN, (AGED ABOUT 32, FATHER'S NAME A.THANKAKUTTY, RESIDING AT SUHRA MANZIL, AZHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, CHAIRMAN PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA, 689 645. 2. M.MOHAMMED HUWAIZ, (AGED ABOUT 36, FATHER'S NAME K.MOHAMMED KUNJU), RESIDING AT KALEELIL HOUSE, PUTHENCHANTHA P.O., CHAVARA, SECRETARY, PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645. ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL FOR R1-2 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Con.Case(C).No. 1534 of 2008(S) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: A1. COPY OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF EVENTS. A2. COPY OF THE COMPUTER GENERATED VIDEO RECORD A3. COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.8.08 FROM 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R1 (a) COPY OF THE NEWS ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN KERALA KAUMUDI FLASH (EVENING DAILY) DATED 20.10.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/ S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Con. Case (C) No.1534 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this contempt case alleging that the interim order dated 30.09.2008 in W.P. (C) No.28929/2008 which is produced along with the contempt case has been violated by the respondents. The dispute is regarding metal stored in a site in respect of which a contract was awarded to the petitioner. In the said order, I directed that the metal already there in the site shall not be removed by the Municipality. With the help of Ext.A2 series of photographs, the petitioner would contend that, the said order has been violated because the photographs would show that the Municipality had removed the metal during the period from 17.10.2008 to 19.10.2008. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein they admitted removal of metal, but they say that the writ petition itself was filed after the work of the removal of the metal was over. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The only evidence produced by the petitioner to prove that the interim order has been violated, is Annexure Con. Case (C) No.1534 of 2008 -2- A2 series of photographs. First of all, I cannot decide a contempt case on the basis of photographs produced by the petitioner. Apart from that, Ext.A2 series of photographs do not show any metal being removed as such. What I find from the same is that earth is being put over the spreaded metal and the same is being levelled. In fact the photographs show road rollers also being used which cannot be for removal of the metal but to fix the metal in the surface. In the above circumstances, I do not think that I can take proceedings against the respondents on the basis of this evidence, when they categorically contend that the metal was removed even before the filing of the writ petition. In the above circumstances, the contempt case is closed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner in the writ petition. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/