IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 863 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2665/2008 Dated 23/01/2008 ............................................... PETITIONER: ---------------- THENGINA KUDIYIL JOSE, S/O. VARKEY ISAHAK, ARAVINCHAL P.O., PAYYANNUR VIA, PERINTHADA AMSOM DESOM KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT: ------------------ T.P.SREEDHARAN,AGE, & FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBU,KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.O.C. No. 863 OF 2008 (S) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T Non-compliance of Annexure I judgment is complained in this case. By Annexure I judgment it was directed that the respondent therein shall consider and pass orders on Ext. P1. It is now disclosed by the learned Govt. Pleader, on instruction, that due to want of details in Ext. P1 the petitioner was called upon to furnish the necessary details. It is also stated that these details are yet to be furnished and even the fee payable is yet to be remitted and that in view of this, the respondent is unable to comply with the directions in the judgment. It is offered that if the required particulars are furnished and the fee is paid, the direction in Annexure I judgment will be complied with. On facts, as at present, since the delay is attributable to the petitioner, I do not see any contempt committed by the respondent warranting interference. C.O.C. is therefore, closed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-