IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1421 of 2010(S) ------------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22075/2009 DATED 15/09/2009 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC ------------------------------------------------- REJI ANTONY, SON OF LATE ANTONY, AGED 40 YEARS, PORUNNAKODU HOUSE, KARIKKATTOOR KARA AND POST, MANIMALA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOHN JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, (WHOSE FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER) THE SECRETARY, MANIMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARIKKATTOOR POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. A. SOMAN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, (WHOSE FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER) THE SECRETARY, NAYARAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NAYARAMBALAM POST, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, AND FORMER SECRETARY OF MANIMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cont.Case(C).No.1421 of 2010-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011. Judgment The petitioner came to this Court filing WP(C). 22075/2009 stating that his application for slaughter house licence is not issued, though applied for. There was a direction in the judgment that the licence will be issued, if the application is in order provided the applicant cures the defects which were then pointed out. This contempt of court case is filed on the allegation that in spite of curing the defects, the licence is not issued. The materials in the form of counter affidavits through the two respondents and the reply affidavits tend to show that the case now built up by the petitioner is that while the officials who are the respondents assert that the petitioner had not remitted the amounts due towards paper publication charges, the petitioner would contend that the amount was COC1421/10 -: 2 :- handed over to the second respondent, who was the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat at the relevant time. Petitioner, however, does not show any receipt for such payment. He, however, produced an affidavit stated to be of an advocate's clerk of Kottayam, who has sworn to that he was a witness to the petitioner paying the amount of Rs.12,000/- to the second respondent as paper publication charges. I am inclined to think that this is not an issue on which this Court would proceed further to investigate since what has to be established is that the petitioner had paid the amounts. In the absence of any receipt evidencing payment, which is the normal norm, going by the common course of official actions, the discretion has to be exercised to hold that no case of contempt is established for further proceeding with this case. This will, however, be without prejudice to the petitioner getting licence by following all the necessary procedures and also without prejudice to his moving civil or criminal courts or the police authorities of any COC1421/10 -: 3 :- complaint as regards the aforesaid amount. This contempt of court case is hence closed subject to what is aforesaid. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Sha/1503