IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 644 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10335/2011 Dated 31/03/2011) ....... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. BABY GIRIJA, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, ELAMBASSERIL HOUSE, KOLAPPAD, ERANHIKKODE P.O., EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. LAYA RAVEENDRAN, MUKALEL HOUSE, ERANHIKKODE P.O., KOLAPPAD, EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. LEENA RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING DO. 4. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.GOPALAN, ELAMBASSERI HOUSE, ERANHIKKODE P.O., EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. INDIRA, D/O.CHENNAN MUTHAN, THYCAD VEEDU, RAMANKUTHU P.O., MUTHUKKAD COLONY, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, NILAMBUR. 2. JAMEELA @ AMMINI, RESIDING DO. 3. SANTHA, D/O.CHENNAN MUTHAN, THANNIKUZHI HOUSE, PULLIPPADAM, MALAPPURAM. 4. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR, HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Con.Case(C).No. 644 of 2011(S) 5. VIJAYALAKSHMI, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA. 6. SELVARAJ, TAHSILDAR, NILAMBUR. 7. SETHUMADHAVAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P. NARAYANAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (C ) No.644 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 28th June, 2011 J U D G M E N T This matter arise from the judgment passed in W.P.(C)No. 10335 of 2011, whereby the second respondent in the writ petition was directed to finalise the pending proceedings and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also to the complainant Chennan or his legal heirs (if the complainant Chennan was no more), within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment; simultaneously ordering 'status quo' till such time. 2. The contempt case has been filed by the petitioners against as many as 7 respondents, some of whom were not even parties to the writ petition. 3. The 5th and 6th respondents have filed a statement pointing out the actual facts and figures, stating that earnest efforts are being pursued by the concerned respondents to comply with the directions given by this Court and that there is CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (C ) No.644 OF 2011 2 no contumacious act at all. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 4 to 7 submits that the judgment is dated 31.03.2011 and the time granted by this Court being 4 months, the Contempt Case itself is premature . 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already received a notice from the second respondent in the writ petition, as to the hearing scheduled today and in the said circumstance, the present Contempt Case is not pressed any further and seeks for permission to withdraw the Contempt Case, with liberty to the petitioners to agitate the matter, if and when necessitated. In the above circumstances, no further orders are called for and the Contempt Case is closed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioners as aforesaid. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk