IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1424 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16510/2008 Dated 13/06/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- NISHAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.KANNOLI VASUDEVAN PROPRIETOR OF SREERAM BAKERY, THRIPRAYAR DESOM, NATTIKA VILLAGE, RESIDING AT CHIRAKKAL DESOM, CHERPU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ PRASANNA, AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MAJOR SECTION, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR. SC ADV. SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Case (C) No. 1424 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The operative part of Annexure A1 judgment reads as follows: “ Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner applies for the benefit of one time settlement scheme and remits the entire amount in terms of the scheme within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the connection standing in the name of the petitioner, which has been disconnected, will be restored immediately. Petitioner will pay the reconnection charges also before reconnection is restored.” 2. According to the petitioner, there is contempt. The respondent denied the same and filed a statement. Annexure A2 is dated 17.7.2008. It reveals that sanction is accorded to settle the arrears of surcharge on current charges of Rs.34,681/- on one time settlement at 12%. Annexure A3 is dated 20.9.2008, by which Rs.79,280/- is demanded as current charges and a total amount Rs.81,139/- is demanded. According to the respondent the petitioner did not pay the said amount and this is the amount to be paid under the one time settlement. No doubt learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the calculation is not correct. COC. 1424/2008. 2 Having regard to the jurisdiction in contempt, in this case it may not be proper to proceed in contempt. Accordingly, I drop the contempt proceedings without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the proceedings in appropriate forum. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb