IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 840 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31314/2009 Dated 08/06/2010 .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER IN IA 6576/2010 ----------------------------------------- THOMAS PAUL, S/O.PAILY, AGED 42 YEARS, IDINJIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, NADUVATHPARA POST, PERINGOTTUKURUSSI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. P.V.BABY MR. R.KIRAN RESPONDENT: 2ND RESPONDENT IN IA 6576/2010 --------------------------------------------- VELLAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NAME OF THE FATHER IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MAJOR SECTION, KOTTAYI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. MR. K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ COC (C) No. 840 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 27th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this contempt of court case alleging wilful disobedience on the part of the respondent in complying with the direction contained in the interim order dated 08.06.10 in I.A. 6576 of 2010, whereby the second respondent therein was directed to provide service connection to the residential building of the petitioner, notwithstanding the pendency of W.P. (C) 31314 of 2009. 2. The respondent/contemnor has filed an affidavit dated 9.7.10, stating that earnest efforts have already been taken to implement the direction, pointing out that, though a total sum of Rs. 1500/- as 'cash deposit' and Rs. 1500/- as 'S/C charges' and another sum of Rs. 8989/- as the 'balance OYEC amount' demanded, the petitioner remitted only the first two items and the amount in respect of 'OYEC' is still to be satisfied, under which circumstances, the application of the petitioner can be considered only subject to the seniority of other applicants. It is stated that there is absolutely no violation of any of the directions given by this Court and it is only because of the fault of the petitioner himself, that the connection could not be provided. Reference is also made to Cont. Case (C) No. 840 of 2010 : 2 : the specific observations made by this Court in the interim order, wherein the direction has been given as “the second respondent shall inform the petitioner as to whether any other requirement is to be satisfied, within two days, on which event, the same shall be complied with by the petitioner within three days thereafter”. 3. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that, there is absolutely no contumacious act on the part of the contemnor/respondent. Accordingly, the contempt of Court case is dismissed. However, it is made clear that, on satisfying the 'OYEC' amount as mentioned in the affidavit, the connection shall be provided to the petitioner in conformity with the direction given Annexure A1 order. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd