K.R.Hashir vs T.K.Baladev
2021 Latest Caselaw 20104 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

        FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 2ND ASWINA, 1943

                        CON.CASE(C) NO. 584 OF 2019

   ORDER DATED 06.12.2018 IN WP(C) 3684/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER/S:

           K.R.HASHIR
           AGED 42 YEARS
           KADAMBOT HOUSE, ERIYAD P.O., KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR.
           BY ADV BASANT BALAJI

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS. 5 & 6:
     1    T.K.BALADEV,
          AGED 48 YEARS
          S/O.KOCHUNNI, GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION
          CORPORATION, OLD PWD STORE COMPOUND, PMG, VIKAS BHAVAN,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 033.
     2    SHARI M.ROY,
          AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, REGIONAL
          MANAGER, KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, REGIONAL
          MANAGERS OFFICE, PADATHANAM BUILDINGS, ALAPPUZHA- 688 009.
     3    ADDL. R3 TO R5 IMPLEADED:
          KERALA VARDHANA RAO,
          AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
          PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS
          DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
     4    BINDU,
          AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
          SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, (BRIDGES), PWD SOUTH CIRCLE,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
     5    MUKESH,
          AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
          EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BRIDGES DIVISION,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
          [ADDL. R3 TO R5 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 28/06/2019 IN
          IA.1/2019.]
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
          M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
           SRI.G.BIJU

      THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

     ON 24.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 C.O.(C) No. 584/20109                      :2:




               Dated this the 24th day of September, 2021.

                             JUDGMENT

This contempt is filed complaining that the directives contained

in the order dated 06.12.2018 in I.A. No. 6 of 2018 is not complied

with.

2. However, today when the matter is taken up for

consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the directives contained in the order is complied with. Therefore, I do

not find any reason to proceed with the contempt case.

Accordingly, this contempt case is closed.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv