IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1015 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.12577/2010 Dated 02/06/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- MARIA AGNUS LUKE, W/O.T.A.PETER, AGED 53 YEARS, SUB REGISTRAR (UNDER SUSPENSION), NOW RESIDING AT THUNDIPARAMBIL, PATTATH ROAD, CHALIKKAVATTAM, VENNALA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT ----------------------------- SRI.MARA PANDIYAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.B.PERUMAL, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (E) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BENNY GERVASIS THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2010, ALONG WITH WA NO. 1475 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cont. Case (C) No. 1015 OF 2010 and W.A. No. 1475 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 5th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon J. The petitioner, while working as Sub Registrar in the concerned SRO, was placed under suspension as per order dated 22.02.2010, which was challenged by filing W.P. (C) 12577 of 2010. After hearing both the sides, a learned Single Judge of this Court set aside the impugned order of suspension and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner. 2. Aggrieved by the said verdict, the State has come up with the above Writ Appeal, wherein there was a delay of 31 days, which has already been condoned. Alleging non-compliance with the verdict, the petitioner has also come up with the contempt of Court case. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that, eventhough the verdict passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court has been subjected to challenge by filing Writ Appeal, the respondent has given effect to the verdict and the petitioner has been reinstated, though in a different office. It is also COC (C) No. 1015 of 2010 & W.A. No. 1475 of 2010 : 2 : pointed out that a vigilance enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner and the proceedings are still going on. 4. Taking note of the turn of events, particularly as to the substantial compliance of the direction given by this Court, by setting aside the suspension and reinstating the petitioner giving a posting in Alleppey district, we do not find it necessary to proceed with the contempt matter. Accordingly, it is closed. 5. In view of the compliance of the verdict passed by this Court, the issue raised in the Writ Appeal has become merely academic. Hence, we do not find it necessary to go into the merits of the appeal as well. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is also closed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the appellants to proceed with disciplinary/vigilance proceedings, which are stated as pending. J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd