IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1383 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33034/2008 PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- V.BALARAM, COUNCILLOR, VARKALA MUNICIPAL VARKALA PO, PIN 695 141, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- SANTHOSHKUMAR, TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, ATTINGAL PO. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN Ag. CJ & C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CONT. CASE (C) 1383 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. J U D G M E N T Raman, Ag. CJ. This contempt case has been filed alleging non compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment rendered in WP(C) 33034/2008. 2. Pursuant to the notice issued, a counter affidavit has been filed reporting compliance. The respondent was also present. 3. The direction contained in para 3 of the judgment is to the following effect: "This writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to take appropriate action in the cases of those applicants pointed out in the additional affidavit and others, if any pending, in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. If any application cannot be considered, the same shall be duly intimated to the applicant concerned within the said time." In the light of the direction, all that is to be done by the 4th respondent is to Cont. Case (C) 1383/2009 2 dispose of the applications filed by the applicants and if, for any reason any application could not be considered, the same is to be informed duly to the applicant concerned. As per the averments made in the counter affidavit, in cases where patta could be granted, the same has been issued and in cases, where patta could not be issued, the same has been communicated to the applicants with reasoning. In that view of the matter, non issuance of patta for the reasons stated, is a matter, which the aggrieved party can take up in separate proceedings. In the above circumstances, the contempt is closed. P.R. RAMAN, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE) C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). knc/-