IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 808 of 2010(S)
1. JAYAKUMAR.N., S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ANITHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :06/08/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
---------------------------
Cont. Case (C) No.808 of 2010-S
----------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This case has been filed by the petitioner, alleging
contumacious act on the part of the respondent/contemnor, stating
that the interim order dated 14.6.2010 passed by this Court in W.P
(C) No.18287 of 2010, directing to maintain `status quo’, was not
complied with and that the line was drawn and connection was
provided to the beneficiary, which hence is sought to be acted upon.
2. The respondent has filed an affidavit, along with a
document produced as Ext.R1(a), pointing out that the description
of the third respondent, in the cause title of the Writ Petition is quite
wrong. It is also stated that the respondent/contemnor was neither
informed as to the existence of the interim order, nor was she
available in the office on the relevant date or at the site, as
contended by the petitioner, which is very much discernible from
the office proceedings and records. It is also pointed out that there
is no such Assistant Engineer in the Electrical Sub Division,
Kesavadasapuram shown as the third respondent and the party
Cont. Case (C) No.808 of 2010-S 2
should have been either the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical
Sub Division, Kesavadasapuram or the Assistant Engineer, Electrical
Section, Kesavadasapuram.
3. It is stated in para 12 of the said counter affidavit that,
eventhough the learned standing counsel had informed the position
to the office of the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section,
Kesavadasapuram about the interim order, the subject matter was
not within his jurisdiction of the said officer and hence he was
unable to comply with the interim order. It was only on 15.6.2010
that the respondent could contact the office of the standing counsel
and by that time, the line had already been drawn and connection
was effected.
4. Going by the materials on record, this Court finds that
no contumacious act is made out. No further action needs to be
pursued in the Contempt of Court Case.
The Contempt of Court Case is closed.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
ab
