IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2007 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 1481 of 2007(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7764/2007 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- T.M. ISSAC, S/O. MATHAI, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT THURUTHIL HOUSE, KOTTAPPADY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENTS/2ND RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- 1. P.N. VIJAYAN (FATHER'S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), PATTILASSERIL HOUSE, NEDUMKANDOM P.O., IDUKKI DIST (NOW THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED). 2. VARKEY MANKOOTTATHIL (FATHER'S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), MANKOOTTAM HOUSE, KALAYANTHANI P.O.,IDUKKI DIST. (MEMBER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED). 3. K.N. SOMAN (FATHER'S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, VANNAPPURAM P.O., THODUPUZHA (MEMBER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED). BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Case (C) No. 1481 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of December, 2007 JUDGMENT Contempt alleged is violation of the interim order produced as Annexue A. There was a direction to the second respondent to take a final decision in the matter, after hearing the petitioner, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Originally Annexure B order was passed. Later on, Annexure R1(a) order was passed. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Annexurre R1(a) was passed after hearing the petitioner. In such circumstances, I would think that I need not proceed with the matter in the Contempt of Court Case and I drop the contempt proceedings. But I make it clear that this will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to call in question the order passed by the respondents in appropriate proceedings. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb