IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 823 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15357/2011 Dated 08/06/2011 .................... PETITIONER: --------------- L.INDIRA, 51 YEARS,D/O.LATE LAKSHMI BAI, E.P.NO.5/349, SHASTHAM VALLIYIL VEEDU, EZHIKKARA, NORTH PARUR-683 513. BY ADV. MR. B.RAMACHANDRAN MS. K.B.REKHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- N.P.NORBERT, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, N.PARUR-683 513. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cont. Case No . 823 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 21st October, 2011 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner with regard to non-issuance of ration card was sought to be redressed by filing W.P.(C) No. 15357 of 2011, which was disposed of as per the judgment dated 08.06.2011, directing the 3rd respondent therein to consider the matter and pass appropriate order within the stipulated time. Alleging contumacious act on the part of the respondent in complying with the above said direction, the petitioner is again before this Court, by filing this case. 2. Pursuant to the notice, the respondent has entered appearance and filed a detailed counter affidavit pointing out the sequence of events. It is stated that, based on the verdict as above, a proper enquiry was conducted through the rationing inspector, which revealed that the petitioner was not residing in the particular building bearing No. IV/217 (now V/349) of Ezhikkara Grama Panchayath. The rationing inspector had submitted a report along with copies of the statements of the persons residing nearby (produced before this Court as Annexures R2 to R4). It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, it was actually the brother of the petitioner, who is residing in the concerned building. That apart, it was let known to the husband of the Cont. Case No. 823 of 2011 : 2 : petitioner, who turned up before the respondent, that 'residential certificate' and 'income certificate' were essential for considering the application preferred by the petitioner, which requirement is stated as not complied with so far. The respondent has passed an order dated 06.07.2011 in this regard, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure R5 as well. The actual position narrated by the rationing inspector vide report dated 08.07.2011 has also been produced as Annexure R6. It is also pointed out that the direction contained in the verdict passed has already been complied with, by considering the matter within the time specified therein, holding that the ration card can be issued on production of residential certificate from the concerned Panchayath and income certificate from the concerned village officer. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any lapse on the part of the respondent, much less any wilful disobedience. The Contempt Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd