IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 1436 of 2007 ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30.1.2007 IN APPEAL NO.484/2006. ......................... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS: ----------------------------------------- 1. T.LATHAKUMARI, D/O.THANKAMMA, AGED 45 YEARS, KADAMPATHU HOUSE, KAZHAKUTTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. B.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. BHASKARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, KADAMPATHU HOUSE, KAZHAKUTTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- DHARMAPALAN, (AGE & FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS) SECRETARY, KAZHAKUTTOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.G.BIJU THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Case No.1436 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ, The Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions has passed an order dated 30th January, 2007, inter alia directing the Secretary, Kazhakuttom Grama Panchayat to pass a fresh order based on the notice dated 18.11.2006 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants in the appeal. 2. Alleging that the contemner has not passed an order as directed by the Tribunal, the petitioners are before us in this contempt petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution. It is his specific case that no fresh orders are passed by the respondent and thereby he has committed a deliberate disobedience of the orders and directions issued by the Tribunal. 3. Notice on this contempt petition was issued and served on the respondent. He has entered appearance through the learned counsel. 4. The contemner, through his learned counsel, has produced before us the order passed on 19.5.2007. A perusal of the order would indicate that a fresh order has been passed pursuant to the notice dated 18.11.2006. 5. The only direction that was issued by the Tribunal to the respondent/contemner is to pass a fresh order pursuant to the notice dated 18.11.2006 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. 6. The Secretary has now passed an order. That only means that he has complied with the orders and directions issued by the Tribunal. If for any reason the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, they can question the same C.O.(C). 1436/2007. 2 before the appropriate forum. In that view of the matter, we do not intend to take cognizance of the matter. Accordingly, the Contempt of Court Case is rejected. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to question the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the contemner on 19.5.2007 before the appropriate forum, if they so desire. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb.