Radhakrishnan v. Paulus Eapen

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/14TH ASWINA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 488 of 2015 (S) ------------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.9698/2013, DATED 23-01-2015 ---------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) :

------------------------------------------------------------ RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, RADHA MANDIRAM, KODUMON MURI, KODUMON VILLAGE, KODUMON P.O., PIN - 691 555, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN W.P.(C) :

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. PAULUS EAPEN, AGED 50 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, MAKKAMKUNNU, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.

2. P.VALSAKUMARY AMMA, AGED 50 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN SECRETARY KODUMON, SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH KODUMON P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691 555.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ARUNKUMAR, S.C R2 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

Con.Case(C).No. 488 of 2015 (S) ------------------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

ANNEXURE A1:

THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2015 IN W.P.(C).NO.9698/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

ANNEXURE A2:

THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.02.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3:

THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A4:

THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

-------------------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C) No. 488 of 2015 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The 2nd respondent is personally present.

Though the learned counsel for the party respondent in the writ petition submits that the compliance was not as per the directions in the judgment, which was reviewed, as there was compliance from the petitioner's point of view, the contempt case is closed. It shall be open to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition if he is really aggrieved by the present order.

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE bka/-