IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 926 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.34881/2008 Dated 28/11/2008 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC ------------------------------------------------- SULAIMAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.AMMU, KIZHAKKEKUNDUVELILPARAMBIL, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KAKKANAD PO, KOCHI-PIN- 682 030. ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.NOEL JOSEPH SRI.M.B.SANDEEP SRI.K.V.REJANISH RESPONDENT/ 1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC. ------------------------------------------------------------- K.M.THOMAS, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI, KATTEKKALPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PERUMPADAVAM PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DIST. AT PRESENT WORKING AS SECRETARY, THRIKKAKARA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE), KAKKANAD, EKM DIST. R1 BY ADV. SRI. S.SHANAVAS KHAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: app/- S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ============ Cont.Case (C) No.926 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of August 2009. O R D E R ======== On 14.8.2009 I passed the following order in this contempt case: “Learned counsel for the Panchayat submits that an order has been passed as directed in Annexure A1 judgment. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not yet received any orders. Counsel for the respondent shall serve a copy of the order on the learned counsel for the petitioner”. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as directed by this court, a copy of the order has been served on the counsel for the petitioner on 14.8.2009. But he submits that as per the judgment, the order should have been passed in January 2009 and as such there is a delay of more than 7 months. Learned counsel for the Panchayat submits that the order has been passed in his favour and in fact it was passed in January 2009 itself, but the order was sent to the Cont.Case (C) No.926 of 2009 2 petitioner by ordinary post. The counsel for the Panchayat further submits that the second respondent in the writ petition has been directed to demolish the offending portion of the building constructed by him which was the subject matter of the writ petition and that the Panchayat would take all steps to see that the offending portion is demolished by the second respondent in the writ petition. In view of the above, I do not think that any further proceedings are necessary in this contempt case. Accordingly the Contempt of Court Case is closed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. app/-