IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1823 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.30626/2007 Dated 28/02/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.A.MATHEWS S/O.LATE SHRI.P.M.ALEXANDER,PUNTHALA JO VILLA VADAKKEDATHUCAVU PO,ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX RESPONDENT(S)/CONTEMNORS: --------------- 1. V.V.VARGHESE,AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN. (CHAIRMAN, STANDING COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE ADOOR MUNICIPALITY) VALLAPATHUVILAYIL,MITHRAPURAM, PARANTHAL PO, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. MATHEW VEERAPALLY (MEMBER STANDING COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE ADOOR MUNICIPALITY), AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN VEERAPALLIL HOUSE, PANNIVIZHA, ADOOR PO, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. A.K.KRISHNAN KUTTY,AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN. (MEMBER STANDING COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE ADOOR MUNICIPALITY) ALUVILAYIL HOUSE,ANANDAPALLY PO ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. RAMESH KUMAR V.S. AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN. (MEMBER STANDING COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE ADOOR MUNICIPALITY) VARICKAVELIL HOUSE, ANANDAPALLY PO ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADDL.R5. S.JAYAKUMAR, SECRETARY, ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ADOOR P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA 691 523. ( ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 20/3/2009 IN IA 156/2009) ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ FOR R1-5 SRI.L.RAJ MOHAN FOR R1-5 SRI.SAJJU.S FOR R1-5 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------ C.O.C.1823/2008 IN W.P.(C)No.30626 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Municipality that the order passed by the Municipality appears to be not strictly in conformity with the judgment. Hence, the Municipality has been advised to pass fresh order strictly in conformity with the directions in the judgment. I record the above submission and close the C.O.C.. Since fresh order is going to be passed by the Municipality, there will be a direction to the Municipality to hear the petitioner also before such order is passed. Interim order in currency will continue till such time as the revised order is passed by the Municipality. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE dpk WPC.No. 2 WPC.No. 3 PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------ C.O.C.1823/2008 in W.P.(C)No.30626 of 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009 ORDER Heard both sides. I feel that for taking correct decision in the Contempt Of Court Case in the light of the counter affidavit filed by the additional 5th respondent, presence of respondents 1 to 4 in the COC before this court is necessary. Hence issue notice to respondents 1 to 4. Their personal appearance is dispensed with for the time being. In the meanwhile, Annexure -J will stand stayed and there will be a direction to the additional 5th respondent to permit the WPC.No. 4 petitioner to carry on business, as he is presently doing, in the building in question. Post after holidays. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE dpk