IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 12 of 2011(S) ----------------------------- PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- JAMES JOSEPH, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.M.T.JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR,MALIEKKAL ELECTRONICS, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT MALIEKKAL HOUSE BEHIND SANKERS HOSPITAL,KOLLAM-1 BY ADV. SMT.K.G.BINDU SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SMT.PRINCY XAVIER RESPONDENT/1st RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- M.VISWANATHAN,ACCOMODATION CONTROLLER TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM 695 001. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 12 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioner is stated as aggrieved by the non-implementation of the judgment dated 03.09.2010 in W.P. (C) No.25206 of 2010. 2. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition was that, despite filing a petition(Ext.P6) under Section 17(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act before the Accommodation Controller seeking for immediate intervention for effecting repairs of the building in which the petitioner is conducting business in Electronic goods as a tenant; it was still to be acted upon by the concerned respondent therein. It was in the said circumstances that this Court passed Annexure I order directing the concerned respondent to take up Ext.P6 and to dispose of the same in accordance with law within a time frame as specified therein. This case has been filed contending that the direction given by this Court as per Annexure I judgment has not been complied with so far, leading to the offence of Contempt of Court. COC No. 12 of 2011 -:2:- 3. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the idea of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived. It is pointed out that the petitioner's representation (Ext.P6) has already been considered and appropriate orders have been passed in accordance with law and further that the outcome has been already conveyed to the petitioner as well. Service of the copy of the said order is stated as correct by the learned counsel for the petitioner; though it is contended that the same is not in conformity with the statutory requirements. If the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner, of the order passed by the Accommodation Controller, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same by resorting to appropriate proceedings. We find absolutely no contempt on the part of the respondent. The Contempt Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb COC No. 12 of 2011 -:3:-