IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1049 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32724/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRIYA K.S., AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.SUKUMARAN, KANIMANGALATH HOUSE, VALIYALAKKAL, KANIMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SRI.JOSE ABRAHAM, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN) PRESENTLY WORKING AS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.E.NO.150(D) (MILMA) P.B.NO.2212, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN - 682 024 (IST RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.32724/09) 2. SMT.SHERLY K.GEORGE, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DIARY MANAGER, ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD, THRISSUR DIARY, RAMAVARMAPURAM - 680 631 (2ND RESPONDENT IN THE W.P(C) 32724/09). BY SC FOR RESPONDENTS SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Cont. Case (C) No.1049 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T This contempt case is filed alleging that respondents who are the Managing Director and the Diary Manager of the Ernakulam Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. have violated Annexure-I judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.32724 of 2009. By the said judgment, the first relief prayed for in the writ petition, viz., a direction to the respondents in the writ petition to comply with the tender conditions in Ext.P1 tender notice and to execute an agreement incorporating the terms and conditions, was declined. The second prayer was for a direction to the respondents to release the amount payable for the previous year during which also the petitioner was the successful taxi operator. As regards the said relief, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that any money remaining unpaid will be paid, after the accounts are settled expeditiously and in any event within two weeks. The petitioner has no case that the said undertaking has not been complied Cont.Case (C) No.1049 of 2010 2 with. The grievance put forward is that the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by the petitioner for the year 2009-10 have not been complied with. In my opinion, if the respondents are not adhering to the terms and conditions entered into by the petitioner with the respondents, the petitioner's remedy lies elsewhere. In such circumstances, I find no ground to entertain the contempt case. It is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. nj.