IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1252 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18003/2010 Dated 07/07/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- J.DEVAKI, AGED 78 YEARS, CHAITHRAM, THOTTUMUKATHIZHAKKATHIL, KAIKULANGARA, NORTH WARD NO.47, RAMASWARAM NAGAR, KOLLAM-12. BY ADV. SRI.T.O.XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- T.SANTHOSH, SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM MPT THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O.(C) No. 1252 of 2010-S - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT Alleging non compliance of the direction issued by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment, this Contempt of Court Case has been filed. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner alleging that the Corporation was bound to reconstruct a compound wall which was demolished for enabling the Corporation to put up concrete slabs over the drainage. Ultimately, the matter were settled as per the decision reflected in the minutes, a copy of which was produced as Ext.P3 in the writ petition. This Court therefore directed the parties that in terms of the decision taken in Ext.P3, the first respondent will complete the construction within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. A review petition was filed on behalf of the respondent which was dismissed by this Court. 2. It is the allegation of the petitioner herein that while reconstructing the compound wall, the direction in the judgment have not been fully complied with and the implementation is not in tune with the conditions provided in Ext.P3. 3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the petitioner has CCC 1252/2010 2 filed a reply affidavit also. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the details of Ext.P3 and the photographs produced along with the affidavit to contend for the position that now the compound wall has been constructed leaving a width of 2 ft. from the concrete slabs. It is stated that this is in violation of the conditions provided in Ext.P3. 4. Learned counsel for the Corporation explained that the terms in Ext.P3 have not been violated an the construction fully tallies with the terms contained therein. 5. In the light of the contentions raised by the parties herein, the matter will have to be gone into in detail by an appropriate forum, viz. the civil Court where the actual position with regard to the compound wall which was existing prior to the construction and the manner in which the reconstruction was effected, etc. will have to be gone into. Therefore, leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to file a civil suit and seek for appropriate reliefs, the C.C.C. is closed. It is made clear that I have not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/