IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1077 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20756/2010 Dated 20/07/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- FLORA CHRISTHUDAS, W/O.LATE CHRISTHUDAS, AGED 79, JANATHA QUARTERS, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA-12. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- T.SANTHOSH, AGED ABOUT 54, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN) SECRETARY, ALAPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM MPT THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O.(C) No.1077 of 2010-S - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT As per Annexure IV judgment, this Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directing the Secretary to finalise the follow up action pursuant to the order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and to issue communication to the petitioner as well as respondents 2 and 3. 2. When the matter came up for hearing o n the last occasion, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submitted that the Secretary has already completed the further action and an order has been passed. Today, when the matter came up for further hearing, learned Standing Counsel produced before me for perusal Order No.E5-17619/09 dated 28.8.2010. The said order shows that in terms of the directions issued by this Court, the construction effected by the petitioner was inspected by the Municipal Secretary along with the Town Planning Officer and the Municipal Engineer, on 28.7.2010. It appears that they have taken steps to find out the violations in the construction. coc 1077/2010 2 3. In the above view of the matter, it cannot be disputed that the directions contained in the judgment have been complied with. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far the order has not been communicated to the petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that all the directions have not been properly complied with by the Municipality. In that view of the matter, the respondent will communicate a copy of the order to the petitioner within a period of ten days. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the same in an appropriate forum. The C.C.C. is closed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/