IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 475 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18000/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMT.M.SAKUNTHALA,W/O.SREENIVASAN ERADI, 'SREENILAYAM",KAKKODI,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KASTHURI THILAKAN,53 YEARS,FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PARTY,SECRETARY,KAKKODI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KAKKODI,KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2010, HE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Cont. Case(C).No.475 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Affidavit of the respondent is on board. Having regard to the facts stated therein and in view of the action recorded as per order dated 28.5.2010 on I.A.213/10 in C.O.C.156/10 and in this case, nothing survives. This contempt of court case is hence closed without prejudice to the right of the parties to work out remedies if any grievance subsists. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.05/06. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- COC.475/10 2 I.A.No.213 OF 2010 IN Cont. Case(C).No.156 OF 2010 & Cont. Case(C).No.475 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 O R D E R 1.These two contempt of court cases are filed based on the judgment in W.P(C).18000/09. With the passage of time, the Secretary of the Panchayat has issued a fresh order. Therefore, any interdiction issued as per the interim orders in these cases will stand vacated as the beneficiary of the permit can enjoy it subject to the rights of Smt.M.Sakunthala, the petitioner in C.O.C.475/10 to challenge the same in accordance with law. 2.I.A.213/10 is allowed vacating the interim order granted earlier in C.O.C.156/10. COC.475/10 3 3.In C.O.C.475/10, learned counsel for the respondent states that the affidavit filed in C.C.156/10 could be incorporated. This is impermissible for two reasons. Firstly, the quality of the allegations made are entirely different. Secondly, the causes of action on the basis of which the two contempt cases are filed are different. As last chance, the respondent is given liberty to file an affidavit in C.O.C.475/10. Post on 4.6.2010. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.31/05.