M.Ramachandran Nair vs Dr.P.Prabhakaran on 18 December, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con.Case(C).No. 1423 of 2009(S)


1. M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DR.P.PRABHAKARAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. MANOJ JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUDHEESH.A.

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :18/12/2009

 O R D E R
                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
              .............................................................................
                       C.O.C. No. 1423 OF 2009
                                               IN
                     W.P.(C) No. 7055 OF 2006
              .........................................................................
                  Dated this the18th December, 2009



                                 J U D G M E N T

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the

contemnors/respondents submits that the directions given by this

Court vide judgment dated 20th March 2009 in W.P.(C) No.7055

of 2006 have been complied with and that a speaking order (as

per G.O.(Rt)No.3447/2009/H&FWD dated 25.11.2009) has

already been passed and communicated to the party concerned.

A copy of the said order has also been produced with an affidavit

sworn to by the second respondent, which has been filed before

this Court today.

2. After hearing both the sides and going through the

proceedings, this Court finds that the matter does not require to

be proceeded with any further, in view of compliance reported.

With regard to the grievance projected by the petitioner against

C.O.C. No. 1423 OF 2009

2

the order now passed and produced as Annexure-R2(a), stating

that it is not a speaking order and not fully in confirmity with

the directions contained in the judgment, the remedy of the

petitioner (if he is aggrieved) is to challenge the same in

appropriate proceedings, if so advised.

In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that

the proceedings need not be pursued any further. Accordingly,

the Contempt Case is closed.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk