IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 358 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.143/2011 Dated 28/01/2011 .................... PETITIONER(S): WRIT PETITIONER ------------------------------ DR. M.K.SUSHAMA, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. DR. SARANGAPANI, SARANGI, 18/358, N.A.D. P.O., NOCHIMA, ALUVA, PIN-683 563. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 -------------------------------- 1. J.MAHALEKSHMI MENON, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, INDIAN AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(A&E), KERALA, M.G.ROAD, P.B.NO.5607, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 039. 2. DR. REMANI, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Cont. Case (C) No. 358 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 6th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains of non-compliance with the directions in Annexure A1 judgment. In that judgment, I directed as follows: “In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to see that the balance DCRG due to the petitioner is disbursed to her on the petitioner executing a bond as provided under Rule 116 of Part III of K.S.R undertaking to pay the irregularly paid postmortem allowance, if the same is not recoverable from any of the persons who have received it. The same shall be done within 2 weeks from the date when the petitioner executes the bond.” Admittedly, the petitioner has not executed the bond as directed therein. The contention of the petitioner is that since, subsequently, Annexure A2 order has been passed by the Accountant General releasing the balance amount, it is not necessary to execute the bond as directed in the judgment. 2. I am of opinion that insofar as the judgment directs execution of a bond, the petitioner cannot allege contempt of court without executing that bond or getting the judgment reviewed accordingly. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to continue further proceedings in this contempt court case. Accordingly, the same is closed. The petitioner submits that the petitioner will execute the bond. It is open to the petitioner to execute the bond and seek compliance with the judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.