IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1359 of 2007(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18293/2007 Dated 18/06/2007 .................... PETITIONER(S): 3RD RESPONDENT IN WPC. ----------------------- ANCHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ANCHAL P.O.,KOLLAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY, SC,ANCHAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT SRI.K.K.VIVEKANANDAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- A.S.SALIM, S/O.SAINUDHEEN, AGED 45 YEARS AWD IX RATION WHOLESALE DEALER, ANCHAL P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE BY ADV. SMT.SMITHA GEORGE BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, Ag.C.J. & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Cont. Case (Civil) No.1359 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Raman, Ag.C.J. This contempt application is filed alleging non compliance of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.18293 of 2007. The matter relates to closure of a public way. The writ petition was filed by respondent in this contempt petition. He sought for a declaration that action of the Anchal Grama Panchayat in closing a public way without notice is illegal and arbitrary, and further sought for a direction to open the way towards the petitioner's Ration Dealer Depot. Eventually, the writ petition was disposed of stating that if the petitioner gives an undertaking to the third respondent stating that he will vacate the shop in question and restore back the construction made by the third respondent as it existed, after demolishing it for widening, so as to have ingress of vehicle to his shop at his expense, the petitioner shall be permitted to demolish the construction made, as evident in Ext.P7, for the purpose of getting ingress into and egress from COC.No.1359 of 2007 2 his shop, for a period of one month from 18.6.2007. He shall also give an undertaking that he relinquishes his claim over the pathway and also that the demolition and the restoration will be done at his own expense. 2. When the contempt application came up for consideration, the petitioner stated that the reconstruction of the wall could not be possible since Mini Civil Station work is going on and Panchayat has entrusted the land for construction of a civil station. Since the undertaking given by the petitioner to reconstruct the wall having been disobeyed, we have directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of construction of the boundary wall, as the wall which was there in existence was demolished by the respondent contemnor, on the basis of the order passed by this Court. 3. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has produced a receipt issued by the Panchayat COC.No.1359 of 2007 3 having received the said amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost. In such circumstances, this contempt application is closed. P.R.RAMAN, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE nj.