Disposed

Thomas Mathew v. Sharmila Mary Joseph

Kerala HC14 Sept 2007Con.Case(C)/1169/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt case alleged disobedience of an interim order. The Respondent explained the delay by citing a Government direction preventing AWD sanctions. The court exercised discretion to close the case with liberty to challenge the new order.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed with liberty to challenge the District Collector's order of 23.8.2007 in appropriate proceedings; no costs.

Thomas Mathew Vs Sharmila Mary Joseph — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 23RD BHADRA 1929

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1169 of 2007(S)

¶6

------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13710/2007 Dated 04/05/2007

¶7

PETITIONER:PETITIONER:-

¶8

--------------------------------------

¶9

THOMAS MATHEW, SON OF THOMAS, KOONANICKAL HOUSE, THELLAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.

¶11

RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT NO.1:-

¶12

--------------------------------------------------

¶13

SHARMILA MARY JOSEPH, AGED 36 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM.

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶18

C.O.C.No. 1169 of 2007-S.

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶20

Dated this the 14^th day of September, 2007.

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This Contempt of Court Case is filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 4.5.2007 in WP(C).No.13710/2007. The matter was posted for getting instructions and the Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the District Collector even though had heard the matter, in the meanwhile by Annexure-R1 letter dated 9.5.2007 the Government directed all District Collectors not to sanction AWDs pending decision of the Government. Subsequently by Annexure-R2 order dated 23.8.2007 the District Collector, Kottayam passed orders to the effect that till clarifications are received from the Government the AWD at Ettumannoor cannot be sanctioned.

¶23

2. In fact, in the interim order passed by this Court, there was a positive direction to the first respondent to finalise the proceedings within one month. It would have been proper if the first respondent at the right point of time approached this Court explaining the reasons for the delay in complying with the directions contained in the interim order passed by this Court. Any way, now the District Collector has disposed of the matter by proceedings dated 23.8.2007.

¶24

3. The Contempt of Court Case is closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge Annexure-R2 order in appropriate proceedings. No costs.

¶25

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶26

Kvs/-

Thomas Mathew v. Sharmila Mary Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas Mathew v. Sharmila Mary Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mareena Pinto Vs State of Kerala

C.P.Raghavan Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Attakoya Pallikandy Vs Election Commission of India,N.Delhi

Manoj Vs Kodungallore Municipality

The District Collector Vs Thomas Mathew

Thomas Mathew Vs the District Collector, Kottayam & Anr.