IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 1292 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.30787/2009 Dated 28/01/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MARY JOSEPH, AGED 69 W/O.LATE SRI.P.P.JOSEPH, RETIRED LASCAR, COCHIN CORPORATION, PUTHYVEETTIL HOUSE, 72/60 AZHEEKAL PO, VYPEEN. 2. MARY SEBASTIAN,A GED 68 W/O.LATE SRI.M.A.SEBASTIAN RETIRED DRIVER, COCHIN CORPORATION, MULAPARAMBIL HOUSE ,HOUSE NO.91 AZHEEKAL PO, VYPEEN. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN SRI.M.A.THOMAS KUTTY SMT.SARAMMA CHERIAN SMT.ASHA CHERIAN SRI.P.M.SANEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SRI.P.G.THOMAS IAS SECRETARY , CORPORATION OF COCHIN ERNAKULAM. ADV. SHRI P.K. SURESH KUMAR ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATI FOR R1 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/3/2010 ALONG WITH COC NO. 1294 OF 2009 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 25/03/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O.(C) Nos.1292, 1294 & 1295 of 2009-S & R.P.Nos.269, 270 and 271 of 2011 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT C.O.(C) Nos.1292, 1294 & 1295 of 2009 The above Contempt of Court Cases were filed alleging non compliance of the directions issued in Annexure A1 judgment produced in the respective cases. Subsequent to the filing of the Contempt cases, various interim orders have been issued and in the meanwhile the Cochin Corporation had filed review petitions, viz.R.P.Nos.269/2011, 270/2011 and 271/2011 along with applications for seeking leave, against the order dated 28.9.2010 in the Contempt Cases. Thereafter also, orders have been passed for enabling the resolution of the dispute. 2. In the counter affidavit filed in R.P.No.269/2011 by the petitioners in the Contempt cases, after detailing various aspects, the petitioners have stated that they have obtained various benefits and the Contempt cases may be dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed. In other review petitions also adoption memos have been filed. The memos are CCC Nos.1292, 1294 & 1295/2009 & R.P.Nos.269, 270 & 271 of 2011 2 recorded and accordingly the Contempt of Court Cases are dismissed as infructuous. R.P.Nos.269, 270 and 271 of 2011 In the light of the order passed in the Contempt of Court Cases, these review petitions have become unnecessary and accordingly the same are closed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/