IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 808 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18287/2010 Dated 14/06/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYAKUMAR.N., S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 45, RESIDING AT POLICE QUARTERS NO.G2, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SUKUMARAN, S/O.KESAVAN, AGED 60 YEARS, PUSHPITHA BHAVAN, PATHIRIPALLI, TRIVENI GARDEN,KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- ANITHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-IN-CHARGE, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, KESAVADASAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2010, COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- Cont. Case (C) No.808 of 2010-S ---------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T This case has been filed by the petitioner, alleging contumacious act on the part of the respondent/contemnor, stating that the interim order dated 14.6.2010 passed by this Court in W.P (C) No.18287 of 2010, directing to maintain ‘status quo’, was not complied with and that the line was drawn and connection was provided to the beneficiary, which hence is sought to be acted upon. 2. The respondent has filed an affidavit, along with a document produced as Ext.R1(a), pointing out that the description of the third respondent, in the cause title of the Writ Petition is quite wrong. It is also stated that the respondent/contemnor was neither informed as to the existence of the interim order, nor was she available in the office on the relevant date or at the site, as contended by the petitioner, which is very much discernible from the office proceedings and records. It is also pointed out that there is no such Assistant Engineer in the Electrical Sub Division, Kesavadasapuram shown as the third respondent and the party Cont. Case (C) No.808 of 2010-S 2 should have been either the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Kesavadasapuram or the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kesavadasapuram. 3. It is stated in para 12 of the said counter affidavit that, eventhough the learned standing counsel had informed the position to the office of the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kesavadasapuram about the interim order, the subject matter was not within his jurisdiction of the said officer and hence he was unable to comply with the interim order. It was only on 15.6.2010 that the respondent could contact the office of the standing counsel and by that time, the line had already been drawn and connection was effected. 4. Going by the materials on record, this Court finds that no contumacious act is made out. No further action needs to be pursued in the Contempt of Court Case. The Contempt of Court Case is closed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab