IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 822 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.11020/2010 Dated 30/03/2010 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ----------------------------- S.SREEVALLABHAN, AGED 58, S/O.SIVASANKARA PILLAI,CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, LMB INSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD., REGD. OFFICE SREERANGAM, KADAKKARAPPALLY P.O.,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT INSURANCE PARK,PERUMAL BLDG., TC 38/971,POWER HOUSE ROAD,CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- HARINARAYANAN, CHAIRMAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(IRDA), PARISRAMA BHAVAN, IIIRD FLOOR, BASHEER BAGH, HYDERABAD, PIN-500 004. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN, SC TAC/IR & DA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CC(C).No.822/2011 A P P E N D I X ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-I : COPY OF COMMUNICATION OF FINDINGS DTD. 1.12.09. ANNEXURE-II : COPY OF EXPLANATIONS DTD. 10.12.09 FILED BY PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-III : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DTD. 15.1.10. ANNEXURE-IV : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DTD. 15.1.10 CLARIFIED ANNEX.III COMMUNICATION. ANNEXURE V : COPY OF ORDER DTD. 30.3.10 IN WP(C) 11020/10. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------ Contempt Case (C) No.822 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T Alleging violation of the directions issued by this Court in Annexure-V interim order, this Contempt Case is filed. 2. This Court at the stage of admission issued the said direction, directing the 1st respondent in the writ petition to take a decision on Ext.P16 within a period of one month from the date of the order. 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that already Ext.P16 has been disposed of as per Ext.P17 communication produced in the writ petition itself. It is in that context issuance of a fresh order was not thought of. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P17 do not reflect a proper decision on the pleas raised by the petitioner. This is a matter for this Court to consider in the Contempt Case (C) No.822/2011 2 writ petition itself. Now the respondent has taken a stand that Ext.P17 reflects the decision on Ext.P16. There cannot therefore be any allegation that the respondent has committed contempt of this Honourable Court especially in not complying with the direction in Annexure-V interim order. Therefore, all the contentions of the petitioner will be considered in the writ petition. This Contempt Case is closed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp