IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 573 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): WRIT PETITIONER ------------------------------ SURESH BABU, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, 46 YEARS THUNDATHIL HOUSE, MANNADI P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN RESPONDENT(S): 5TH RESPONDENT ----------------------------- RAVINDRAN, S/O.NEELAKANDAN NAIR AGED 51 YEARS, SANTHINIKETHAN, MANNADI PRESIDENT, FESTIVAL COMMITTEE PUTHIYAKAVU DEVI TEMPLE, MANNADI, ADOOR PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- COC NO.573 OF 2008 (S) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The allegation in this petition is that the direction in Annexure-B judgment in WP(c).No.6357/08, requiring the respondent herein who was the 5th respondent in that case, not to resort to display of fire works in the absence of any licence obtained under the Explosive Rules and violating the terms of Ext.P12 circular issued by the Director General of Police. Petitioner contends that on 28.2.2008, the respondents displayed fire works in violation of the said direction and that by such conduct, he has violated the directions in the judgment warranting to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, where he has denied the allegations. According to him as he did not succeed in obtaining any licence as required and therefore he or the temple committee could not display fire works and the allegation according to him is incorrect. He also sates that there are several litigations between the petitioner and himself and COC.No.573/08 :2 : that this Contempt of Court Case has been filed only for wrecking vengeance against him. It is also stated that the CD that the petitioner stated to have in his possession evidencing display of fire works as alleged in the petition is a manipulated one and therefore cannot be relied on. 3. To this counter affidavit petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations and reiterating that the respondent has violated the directions in paragraph 5 of the judgment in the writ petition. 4. Apart from the assertions and counter assertions made by the parties herein there is nothing on record to conclude that the allegation made in the Contempt of Court case is prima facie correct. The CD which he say that he has, is not produced and the counsel is also not certain as to whether the CD will show that fire works were displayed on 28.2.2008. In such circumstances, I am not in a position to arrive at a prima facie conclusion that the judgment has been disobeyed. Therefore contempt of Court case is closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ COC.No.573/08 :3 :