IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Cont.Case(C).No.513 of 2007(S) --------------------------------------------------------- ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.NO.27027/1999, DATED 19/12/2005 .................... PETITIONER: 1ST PETITIONER:- ---------------------------------------------- K.UNNIKRISHNAN, SECRETARY, ANNAMANADA KALIMON VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHOM LTD.NO.C.IND.R.72, MAMBRA P.O., ERAYAMKUDY, TRICHUR-680308. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.JAIBY PAUL RESPONDENT:- ---------------------- O.C.RAVI, AGED 33 YEARS, SON OF O.K.CHAMY, PRESIDENT, ANNAMANADA KALIMON VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHOM LTD NO.C.IND-R.72, MAMBRA P.O., ERAYAMKUDY, TRICHUR-680308. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. ---------------------------------------------- Cont.Case (C).No.513 of 2007-S ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th November, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. The two directions that were issued by this Court while disposing of O.P.No.27027 of 1999 dated 19.12.2005 are, to permit the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent in the Original Petition, viz., the Project Officer, District Khadi and Village Industries Office, Thrissur, by making an appropriate representation for grant of Dearness Allowance as provided under Rule 189(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (“Rules” for short) and the other direction was, once the Project Officer passes an order, the 2nd respondent in the Original Petition would comply with the orders passed by the Project Officer. (2) The case of the petitioner is, that, an appropriate resolution has been passed by the respondents to grant Dearness Allowance to the petitioner and others. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have stated, that, at no point of time neither the petitioner nor any other petitioner in the Original Petition has approached the Project Officer for disbursement of the Dearness Allowance by making an appropriate representation. Cont.Case (C).No.513/2007-S - 2 - (3) Sri.V.G.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, primarily relies on Annexure-II resolution said to have been passed by the respondents. The resolution does not bear the signature of the persons who had passed the resolution. In the contempt petition filed, the petitioner-complainant has not stated how he came in possession of the aforesaid document. (4) In order to take the benefit of the orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid Original Petition, Annexure-II is produced by the petitioner-complainant, which we do not propose to accept. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, that, the respondents have neither wilfully nor deliberately disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court. Therefore, we need not have to take cognizance of this contempt petition. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge