V.N. Saji v. Abraham Jacob

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/20TH SRAVANA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 673 of 2013 (S) IN WP(C).23161/2012 ----------------------------------------------------- IN WP(C) 23161/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 07-12-2012 ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

---------------------------------------------------------------------- V.N. SAJI, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT VELIYAMKUNNATH HOUSE KULAMAVU.P.O., IDUKKI.

BY ADV. SRI.C.T.JESTIN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.5:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ABRAHAM JACOB, AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER CHIEF TECHNICAL EXAMINER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.

R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAMPRASAD UNNI.T THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Con.Case(C).No. 673 of 2013 (S) IN WP(C).23161/2012 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPENIDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE :

------------------------------------------ ANNEXURE A1 :

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.12.2012 IN W.P.C.NO.23161/2012.

ANNEXURE A2 :

TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3 :

TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 29.4.2013 DEMANDING DUE COMPLIANCE OF THE JUDGMENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE :

NIL ---------------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE VS

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

--------------------------------------------------- Con.Case.No.673 of 2013 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2015

JUDGMENT

By Annexure A1 judgment, this Court found that there is no irregularity in the matter of arrangement of work on quotation basis. It was also observed that if the petitioner has got any grievance, he can complain directly to the fifth respondent and get the matter enquired into. Alleging the non compliance of the directions, in spite of the order made by this Court, this contempt case is filed.

2. An affidavit was filed by the respondent in the matter as directed by this Court on 11.09.2013. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the affidavit are abstracted below. "3. It is further submitted that a complaint was filed by the petitioner alleging irregularities in arranging the works on quotation basis by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Sub Division, Thodupuzha. In obedience to the above judgment, petitioner vide his petition dated 15.01.2013, has approached and requested to conduct a field inspection and to keep in abeyance the payment of the work done till enquiry is completed.

Con.Case.No.673 of 2013 -24. Accordingly, officials from the office of the respondent have inspected the two works sites and the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Sub Division, Thodupuzha on 16.02.2013 and 20.03.2013. A reply in this regards has already been issued to Sri.C.T.Jestin, Advocate of Sri.V.N.Saji on 15-05-2013 as reply to the lawyer notice dated 29.04.2013.

5. It is further submitted that Final enquiry report has been sent on 23.09.2013 by registered post to the Petitioner. It is found out in the enquiry that the allegations raised by the petitioner against the official concerned are baseless."

It is evident that the directions have therefore been complied with. I am therefore satisfied that no action is required under the Contempt of Court Act and accordingly the Con.Case.No.673/2013 is closed. Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE vs