IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 492 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.38207/2007 Dated 26/02/2008 .................... PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT IN THE WPC ---------------------------------------------------- KANNUR RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, NELLIKKUTTY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SHAJU JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. PROF.P.G.RAVEENDRANATH, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED 54 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (HORTICORP), POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. G.RAJEEV, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED 50 YEARS, ADMINISTRATIVE & VIGILANCE OFFICER, HORTICORP, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.ABDUL KHARIM SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R1 & R2 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== Cont.Case.(C) NO. 492 OF 2008 S ==================== Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Disobedience of Annexure 1 order is complained of in this petition. By order dated 24/12/2007, it was ordered that payment, if any made by the 1st respondent in the writ petition to the 2nd respondent (the petitioner herein) will be at the risk of the 1st respondent. That order was later clarified that the order dated 24.12.2007 will not stand in the way of the 1st respondent releasing payment to the petitioner herein. In this contempt petition, what is alleged is that despite the clarification, payment has not been released. 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the respondents. On a combined reading of the order dated 24/12/2007 and Annexure 1 order, I do not find any compulsion for the 1st respondent to have released the payment. On the other hand, it was purely at his option and on his willingness to take the risk, that he could have made payment. 3. In my view, non payment of the amount claimed does not COC 492/08 :2 : render the respondents liable to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Court's Act. Contempt of Court case is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp