IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1076 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26466/2003 .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- KARTHIKEYAN T.K., S/O.LATE KRISHNANKUTTY, VISHNU MANA, C.M.C.29, CHERTHALA P.O. CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.N.R.CHANDRASEKHARAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. V.P.C.RAO,AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, OFFICE OF THE CALICUT COMMISSIONERATE,C.R.BUILDING, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT. 2. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, FORMER COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE WITH REGULAR CHARGE FOR BOTH ERNAKULAM AND CALICUT, NOW TRNSFERRED TO: THE OFFICE OF THE CHENNAI COMMISSIONERATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS,CHENNAI 3. M.VINOD KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, OFFICE OF THE KOCHI COMMISSIONERATE, C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCIS FOR R1 TO 3 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... Cont. Case No. 1076 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner alleges non-compliance with the directions in my judgment dated 13.1.2009 in W.P(C) No. 26466 of 2003. By the same, I directed the Reward Committee to pass fresh orders on the basis of the guidelines applicable giving reasons. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Excise and Customs submits that although Annexure A7 communication does not state the reasons, there is another order which gives detailed reasons, a copy of which has been furnished to the counsel for the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner admits having received the same. In such circumstances, the remedy of the petitioner lies in challenging that order appropriately. Without prejudice to that right this contempt case is closed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs