IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 358 of 2010(S) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.757/2009 Dated 26/06/2009 .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- VIJAYAPPAN, AGED 52, S/O PAPPY, EXCISE PREVENTIVE OFFICER, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SRI.RAMAKRISHNAN SOMANADHAN NAIR SMT.V.RENJU SMT.M.A.RAMITHA RESPONDENT: --------------------- SRI.C.K.VISWANATHAN, AGED 58, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. ------------------------------------------ Cont. Case (C) No.358 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. This contempt case is filed alleging that the petitioner's case for promotion was not considered pursuant to the judgment. However, the learned Government Pleader specifically pointed out that the petitioner was not eligible to be included in the seniority list which was published without his name therein. However, the petitioner has caused a lawyer notice subsequently, against which a detailed reply is furnished by the Excise Commissioner which is produced by the petitioner himself as Annexure A9. It is seen from Annexure A9 that the petitioner's case for promotion was considered, but it was turned down by the Excise Commissioner. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was entitled to be included in the seniority list for promotion, we do not think, in the contempt proceedings this Court should go into the correctness of the Cont. Case (C) No.358 of 2010 . - 2 - order passed pursuant to a writ of mandamus issued by this Court. It is certainly open to the petitioner to challenge the fresh proceedings issued pursuant to the judgment and ask for a declaratory relief, if entitled. Since we find no contempt as alleged, we close this contempt case leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the orders issued in fresh proceedings. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge vns