IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 23 of 2010(S) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.30755/2009 Dated 22/12/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- NAZEER V.K., S/O. V.K. ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 37 YEARS, VATHUKKAL PARAMBIL, KAKKANADU P.O. NEAR KWA WTER TANK, KOCHI-682030. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SEBASTIAN POTTAPALLY, S/O.NOT KNOWN, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, GANDHINAGAR, KADAVANTHARA P.O., ERNAKULAM, COCHI -20. 2. PRAVIN KUMAR B., S/O.MR.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 32 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER, EMMA EXPORTERS, 33/265 C,EMMA HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-683109. 3. EMMY AUGUSTUS, W/O. AUGUSTUS CYRIL, AGED 51 YEARS, PARTNER, EMMA EXPORTERS, 33/265 C, EMMA HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 683109. 4. BETTY THOMAS, W/O. MR.THOMAS, AGED 43 YEARS, PARTNER, EMMA EXPORTERS, 33/265 C, EMMA HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 683109. R2 TO R4 BY ADV.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Cont. Case(C).No.23 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT In the writ petition, an order of stay of Exts.P15, P17 and P18 was sought for. An order of status quo was issued as on 22.12.2009. Now, the petitioner contends that in spite of that order, the respondents who are private parties are carrying on constructions even without allotment of land, being made. The question, fundamentally, raised in the writ petition, going by what is stated in paragraph 2 of this contempt case, is in relation to a commercial transaction of partnership. I do not deem it necessary for this Court to initiate action under the Contempt of Courts Act, at any rate, when there is no interdiction specifically in Annexure A1 against the construction activities. If the petitioner needs further orders in relation to the writ petition, it is for him to move for such relief in the writ petition. There is no question of any situation being made out for issuing orders COC.23/10 2 under the Contempt of Courts Act. This case is hence dismissed without prejudice to contentions in the writ petition. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.19/1.