IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1106 of 2008(S) ---------------------------------------------- (W.P.(C). NO. 21639/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT) ............. PEITITIONER/ PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- K.R.KRISHNAN NAIR, KRISHNA NIVAS, MARIATHURUTHU P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT/ 4TH RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- PRADEEPKUMAR, (AGED AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SECRETARY, SAHITHYA PRAVARTHAKA CO-OP.SOCIETY LTD. NO.2458, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cont.Case(C).No.1106 of 2008-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner retired from the service of the Sahithya Pravarthaka Co-operative Society, the 4th respondent in the writ petition in which Annexure-I judgment was issued. That society which is essentially bankrupt, had then stated that it had moved the Government for financial assistance. Noticing that the society was not challenging the entitlement of the petitioner to gratuity, it was directed in Annexure-I judgment that the petitioner's dues shall be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. I may at once notice that there was no direction in that judgment to make payment in terms of the order of the controlling authority, namely, Ext.P1 in that case. As of now, even according to the COC1106/2008 -: 2 :- petitioner, the principal amount due as gratuity was released. He however contends that the interest component on the order of the controlling authority has not been paid and therefore, the situation results in wilful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure-I judgment. I am not impressed. Firstly, there is no such direction touching the payment of interest component. Secondly, the revenue recovery proceedings are not foreclosed by Annexure-I judgment and if the petitioner has any grievance regarding non-compliance of the order of the controlling authority in its totality, he will be at liberty to move the appropriate authority for further action under the Revenue Recovery Act. However, I am satisfied that there are no grounds to initiate action under the Contempt of Courts Act. This contempt of court case fails and the same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to what is stated above. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/220808