IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 925 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.27619/2007 Dated 30/01/2008 .................... PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT: --------------------------- SHINO DAVID, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.DAVID, KOTHAPARAMBIL, THEKKE MURI, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ------------------------------ 1. M.SATHEESH, AGE NOT KNOWN , S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, PADMAVEETTIL, MEPARAMBATH, PANNIAMKARA, KOZHIKODE. *ADDL.R2.THE CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. *ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU VIDE JUDGMENT IN COC NO.925/08 DATED 27.8.2008. R1 BY ADV.MR.ROY CHACKO THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON HE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Case (C) No.925 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 27th August, 2008 JUDGMENT Even though learned counsel for the petitioner addressed me very strenuously and persuasively, I do not think that the 1st respondent can be made liable for contempt. Under Annexure-1 judgment I gave relief to the writ petitioner-respondent of having the licence application submitted by him before the local authority allowed without insisting on production of a consent letter from the petitioner herein subject to a condition. The condition was that the 1st respondent shall pay a total amount of Rs.Two lakhs in two instalments of Rs.One lakh each. The first instalment was payable on or before 15.2.2008 and the second instalment was payable on or before 15.3.2008. The first instalment of Rs.One lakh was paid by the 1st respondent. As regards payment of the second instalment, the time for making that payment was enlarged under Annexure-2 order till 5.4.2008. The accusation against the 1st respondent is that by not paying the second instalment even within the enlarged time, the 1st respondent is guilty of having committed contempt of Annexure-1 judgment. I am unable to agree. The consequence of non-payment of the second instalment even within the enlarged time as per COC No.925/08 - 2 - Annexure-2 will be that the 1st respondent will forfeit all the benefits of Annexure-1 judgment. The Cherthala Municipality represented by its Secretary is suo motu impleaded as additional 2nd respondent in this case. The Registry will carry out necessary corrections in the cause title. The additional 2nd respondent is directed to take appropriate action and ensure that the 1st respondent does not conduct business on the strength of the licence which was issued to him pursuant to Annexure-1. The Contempt Case will stand closed. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE