IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1173 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15595/2009 Dated 12/06/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN THE WPC ------------------------------------ I.K.SEKHARAN, AGED 65,S/O.ITHIKAD KUTTAN LAW COLLEGE ROAD,AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE WPC ---------------------------------------- ABHILASH,(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME AND HOUSE NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),SECRETARY, THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV.K.B.MOHANDAS, S.C. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Cont. Case(C).No.1173 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner had certain allegations against a construction activity of one Mary Thomas. The parties were before this Court and Annexure I judgment was issued directing that both parties shall be heard in relation to the application filed by Mary Thomas for regularisation of the construction in question. The parties were heard by the respondent. Mary Thomas, through her husband, offered that she will make necessary rectifications to the building to bring it within the rules which would enable her to apply for regularisation in terms of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. The respondent gave her 30 days' time to do so. I do not find that any cause for action under the Contempt of Court Act is made out. Needless to say the petitioner will be heard by the respondent even in the next hearing after the application for rectification is filed following Annexure II order. This is the natural consequence of the direction contained in Annexure I judgment. For that reason COC.1173/09 Page numbers also, I do not find any ground even to assume that the respondent has, in any manner, even attempted to violate the orders of the court. The contempt case fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.12/10.