IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 840 of 2010(S)
1. THOMAS PAUL, S/O.PAILY, AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VELLAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.BABY
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :27/07/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
COC (C) No. 840 of 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 27th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this contempt of court case alleging wilful
disobedience on the part of the respondent in complying with the
direction contained in the interim order dated 08.06.10 in I.A. 6576 of
2010, whereby the second respondent therein was directed to provide
service connection to the residential building of the petitioner,
notwithstanding the pendency of W.P. (C) 31314 of 2009.
2. The respondent/contemnor has filed an affidavit dated 9.7.10,
stating that earnest efforts have already been taken to implement the
direction, pointing out that, though a total sum of Rs. 1500/- as ‘cash
deposit’ and Rs. 1500/- as ‘S/C charges’ and another sum of Rs. 8989/-
as the ‘balance OYEC amount’ demanded, the petitioner remitted only
the first two items and the amount in respect of ‘OYEC’ is still to be
satisfied, under which circumstances, the application of the petitioner
can be considered only subject to the seniority of other applicants. It is
stated that there is absolutely no violation of any of the directions given
by this Court and it is only because of the fault of the petitioner himself,
that the connection could not be provided. Reference is also made to
Cont. Case (C) No. 840 of 2010
: 2 :
the specific observations made by this Court in the interim order,
wherein the direction has been given as “the second respondent shall
inform the petitioner as to whether any other requirement is to be
satisfied, within two days, on which event, the same shall be complied
with by the petitioner within three days thereafter”.
3. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that, there is
absolutely no contumacious act on the part of the
contemnor/respondent. Accordingly, the contempt of Court case is
dismissed. However, it is made clear that, on satisfying the ‘OYEC’
amount as mentioned in the affidavit, the connection shall be provided
to the petitioner in conformity with the direction given Annexure A1
order.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd