No contempt found as no binding directions were violated in the case proceeding.

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.

This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 04.12.2024 in WP(C) No. 25604 of 2024.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. We find that the issue is in respect of the proposal by the Kerala Water Authority for laying a pipeline in connection with the drinking water project in Keezhuparambu Grama Panchayat.

4. It appears that the respondent Nos. 7 and 8, who were the Kerala Water Authority as well as the Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, filed an additional counter affidavit on 02.12.2024, and this Court proceeded to extract paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the additional counter affidavit. After extracting the same, this Court had passed the following directions in paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the judgment, which reads as under:

"7. The learned counsel for the petitioner w ould submit that in view of the alternative route proposed b y t he Kerala Water Authority, the grievance of the p etitioner stands redressed.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is d isposed of, taking note of the aforesaid submission made b y t he learned counsel for the petitioner; however, making i t c lear that this Court has not expressed anything as to t he l egality or otherwise of the decision taken by the Kerala W ater Authority to draw the pipeline through an alternative r oute, avoiding the Devaswom land of Sree Thrikkalayoor Mahadeva Temple."

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have violated the undertaking given before the Court, and therefore, they are to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act , 1971.

6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. We find that this Court, after extracting the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents, had only recorded the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, in view of the alternative route proposed by the Kerala Water Authority, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. This Court had also made it clear that the Court has not expressed anything as to the legality or otherwise of the decision taken by the Kerala Water Authority to draw the pipeline through an alternative route, avoiding the Devaswom land of Sree Thrikkalayoor Mahadeva Temple.

8. It cannot, therefore, be said that this Court had issued binding directions to the respondents, and the same have been violated. No case of contempt is made out.

This Contempt Case is closed, reserving the right of the petitioner to exhaust his remedies in accordance with law, if so advised.

Sd/-