IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1442 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23915/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.C.SIMON,AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE SRI CHAKKAPPAN,POOVATHINKAL HOUSE, MAVELI NAGAR,KURIACHIRA.P.O,THRISSUR. 2. C.P.BABY,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE C.K.PORINJU,CHOONDI HOUSE,CHALISSERY ANGADY,KURIACHIRA.P.O,THRISSUR. 3. P.J.JOY,AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.C.JOSE,POOVATHINKAL HOUSE,OYSTE AVENUE,NELLIKKUNNU,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.PUSHPARAJAN SRI.SREEVALSAN.V RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M.R.ABHILASH,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O.K.RAGHAVAN,SECRETARY,THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,THRISSUR,PIN-680 001. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO FOR R1 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ Con.Case(C)No.1442 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 22 nd day of February, 2011 ORDER The Contempt Case is filed by the Writ Petitioners alleging that the respondent willfully and deliberately violated the directions contained in the judgment dated 2 nd June, 2010. 2. As per the order passed in I.A.No.16228 of 2010 in WP(C) No.23915 of 2009, the time for compliance was extended for a period of two months from 12.11.2010. 3. Along with the additional counter affidavit filed in the case, the respondent has produced Ext.R1 the decision taken by the Thrissur Municipality in the meeting of the Council on 10.1.2011. Con.Case(C)No.1442 OF 2010 2 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ext.R1 does not relate to the directions issued by this court in WP(C) No.23915 of 2009 and the directions in the judgment have not been complied with at all. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that the directions in W.P.(C) No.23915 of 2009 have been referred to in Ext.R1 and the Council has taken a decision thereof. The decision of the Council is in compliance with the directions contained in the judgment. 5. The Municipality has taken a decision against the Writ Petitioners. If the petitioners are aggrieved, they have to challenge the same. On the ground that the decision taken by the Council of the Municipality is not favourable to the Writ Petitioners, or on the ground that the order is bad otherwise, the Contempt Case cannot be proceeded with. It is true that the time for compliance was extended after the Contempt Case was filed. But Con.Case(C)No.1442 OF 2010 3 the time having been extended, further proceedings in the Contempt Case cannot be taken. It is not necessary to decide in the Contempt Case whether the directions in the judgment have been properly complied with in Ext.R1. If a challenge is made against Ext.R1, the court dealing with the Writ Petition will have to decide the same. There is no ground to proceed with the Contempt Case. The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms