Cochin Contractors v. Benedict Antony

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/26TH POUSHA, 1936 Con.Case(C).No. 1121 of 2014 (S) IN WP(C).3078/2014 ----------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3078/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 7.3.2014 PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- COCHIN CONTRACTORS, HMT ROAD, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER VARGHESE AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY, THOMMANA HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA VARAKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S):

------------------- BENEDICT ANTONY, AGED 45 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER THE SECRETARY, MANJAPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH MANJAPRA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 581.

BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

C.O.(C).1121/2014 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1:TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 22.11.2013.

ANNEXURE A2:TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 6.1.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.3.2014 IN W.P.(C). NO.3078 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THIS HOUNOURABLE COURT. ANNEXURE A4:TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE MANJAPRA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 13.8.2014.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

========================== C.O.(C). No.1121 OF 2014 ========================== Dated this the 16th day of January, 2015

JUDGMENT

It is alleging wilful disobedience with the directions of this Court in judgment dated 7.3.2014 in W.P.(C).No.3078 of 2014 that this contempt case has been filed. Admittedly, W.A.No.1493 of 2014 was preferred against the said judgment and the judgment in question was modified as per judgment dated 15.12.2014. While confirming the direction to consider Ext.P5 application afresh, the Division Bench directed the panchayat to obtain a report from the Environmental Engineer and to consider the application within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of such report. In such circumstances, there is no reason to continue with this contempt proceedings. Accordingly, this contempt case is closed.

Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/

W.P.(C).

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

W.P.(C).

JUDGMENT

September, 2010