IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 979 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5547/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- M.K.REGHU, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.NALLAKKAN, MANAKKAPPADATH HOUSE, CHOTTANIKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- T.K.RATNA BAI, AGED ABOUT 50, (HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SECRETARY CHOTTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANCHAYATH OFFICE BUILDING, CHOTTANIKKARA P.O. ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Cont.Case (C) NO. 979 OF 2010 (S) ======================== Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T WP(C) No.5547/10 was disposed of by judgment dated 19th of February 2010 directing the respondent herein to pass orders on the representations made by the petitioner making allegation of unauthorised construction against the 3rd respondent, in the writ petition. It is complaining of non compliance of the above direction, this contempt petition has been filed. 2. Sri.S.Sreekumar, counsel appearing for the respondent on instruction submits that pursuant to the directions in the judgment, on 10/3/2010, notice was issued to the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, to which, he submitted his reply dated 30/3/2010. It is stated that since the 3rd respondent disputed the allegation of unauthorised construction, by letter dated 11/5/2010, a report was called for from the Assistant Engineer, Local Self Government Department, who, on 21/5/2010, submitted his report confirming unauthorised construction. It is stated that, thereupon a provisional order has been issued requiring the removal of the unauthorised construction, and if COC No.979/10 :2 : objections are filed by the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, he will have to be heard and final orders will have to be passed. It is undertaken that this process will be completed at any rate within 6 weeks from today and that before final orders are passed, petitioner herein will also be heard by the Panchayat. 3. From the above submissions, it appears that there has been delay in complying with the direction, still directions are being complied with. In view of the above, recording the submission and leaving it open to the petitioner to approach this Court again, if necessary, this contempt petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp