IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Con.APP(C).No. 5 of 2009(S) ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN COC.1864/2008 Dated 27/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ SENSO V.SCARIA, S/O.SCARIA, AGED 26 YEARS, VADAKKEKKUDIYIL HOUSE, VADAKODU, VAZHAKKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------- 1. DR.M.BEENA, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 2. MANJULLA, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, VILLAGE OFFICER, MANJALOOR VILLAGE, KATHALIKADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. BIJU K.STEPHEN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. M.SULOCHANA, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, MANJALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VAZHAKKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL R4 BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A. KOTTAM THIS CONTEMPT APPEAL (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ Cont. Appeal No.5 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. This contempt appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27th January, 2009 dismissing the contempt petition filed by the appellant herein against the respondents who are mainly public servants. 2. The learned Single Judge noted the fact that after the grant of interim order in W.P.(C) No.27418 of 2008 when the respondents filed an application for vacating the same, they produced enough material, prima facie to reject the contentions raised by the writ petitioner, and while the application was pending consideration, an attempt has been made to abuse the process of the court by filing the contempt petition by the appellant herein suppressing the facts disclosed in the application filed by the respondents for vacating the interim order. The main Cont.Appeal No.5 of 2009 - 2 - contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition was that respondent No.10 therein was operating a quarry without having any permits or licences to be issued in accordance with law and on that ground he had obtained the interim order. 3. After notice, the contesting respondent who appeared before court had filed in detail his objections as well as the records, prima facie, to show that the allegations of the complainant/appellant herein are untrue. It is at that stage, apprehending that the interim order would be vacated, the appellant herein has filed the contempt petition alleging disobedience of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge and considering the tactics of suppression of facts used by the petitioner in the writ petition as well as in the contempt petition, in our view, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the contempt petition with exemplary costs. We do Cont.Appeal No.5 of 2009 - 3 - not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns