IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 481 of 2010(S)
1. RUBY ABRAHAM,AGED 37,S/O.ABRAHAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. A.M.VARGHESE,AGED 54,S/O.MATHEW,
... Respondent
2. DR.Y.ATSASE THONGNTSAR,AGED 31,
3. ARAVINDAKSHAN,AGED 52,S/O.
For Petitioner :SRI.M.C.JOHN
For Respondent :SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :30/07/2010
O R D E R
C.N.Ramachandran Nair & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ.
============================================
Cont.Case (Civil)No.481 of 2010
============================================
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010.
ORDER
Ramachandran Nair, J.
1. Petitioner in the contempt case was the petitioner in the writ petition,
who obtained a judgment from the learned single Judge, which was
confirmed by the Division Bench to the effect that the first
respondent in the Contempt Case cannot continue his industry
without obtaining N.O.C. from the State Level Committee.
However, first respondent’s case is that this Court granted the facility
to continue the industry as an interim measure in the judgment in
W.A.135 of 2010 dated 27.1.2010 and so far the State Level
Committee has not communicated any decision taken on first
respondent’s case. According to him, he was entitled to continue
until orders are passed by the State Level Committee on his
application for N.O.C. We find force in the contention of the first
respondent because, this Court granted six weeks’ time to the first
COC481/10 -:2:-
respondent to run the industry and in between State Level Committee
was directed to dispose of the application. Probably, this Court
would have assumed that State Level Committee will be able to pass
orders within six weeks. If orders are not passed, then it was for the
first respondent to have sought clarification or modification of the
judgment for extension of time for continuing the industry until
orders are passed by the State Level Committee. The contempt has
become infructuous because, unit remains closed. We, therefore,
dismiss the contempt petition with observation that first respondent
is free to ask for modification or clarification of the Division Bench
judgment in the writ appeal.
C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge.
P.S.Gopinathan, Judge.
sl.