Dismissed

Ajithkumar.T. v. Vice Admiral Sunil K.Damle & Another

Kerala HC4 Aug 2008Con.Case(C)/267/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged respondents disobeyed a High Court order by delaying suspension beyond the granted three months. As respondents later revoked the suspension, the High Court dropped contempt proceedings but reserved liberty to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dropped with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court if need arises.

Ajithkumar.T. Vs Vice Admiral Sunil… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 Cont.Case(C).No. 267 of 2008(S)

¶4

¶5

ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).22465/2004 DATED 25/09/2007

¶6

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:-

¶7

¶8

AJITHKUMAR T., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, EX-SALESMAN, UNIT RUN CANTEEN, INS VALSURA, JAMNAGAR, RESIDING AT: OLIPURATH VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, ARINALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM - 690 538.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3:-

¶11

¶12

VICE ADMIRAL SUNIL K.DAMLE, (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE FLAG OFFICERCOMMANDING IN-CHIEF, HEAD QUARTERS, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, KOCHI-682 004.

¶13

COMMODORE B.R. TANEJA, (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE COMMANDING OFFICER, INS VALSURA, JAMNAGAR.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI. P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR BY ADV. SRI.P.J.PHILIP

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶16

H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J.

¶17

Cont.Case (C).No.267 of 2008-S

¶18

Dated, this the 4^th day of August, 2008

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

H.L.Dattu,C.J.

¶21

Inter alia, alleging that the respondents have disobeyed the

¶22

orders and directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C).No.22465 of 2004 dated 25/09/2007, the petitioner in the writ petition has presented this contempt petition.

¶23

The primary grievance of the petitioner/complainant in this contempt petition is that, though, this Court had directed that the respondents, if they so desire, may initiate appropriate proceedings by keeping the petitioner under suspension within three months from the date of the order, it is stated, in the petition that, after the lapse of three months that was granted by this Court, the respondents have passed an order keeping the petitioner under suspension. Therefore, the same would amount to deliberate and wilful disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this Court.

¶24

Noticing this aspect of the matter, we had issued notice to the respondents.

¶25

On the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, we had disposed of the contempt petition filed by the petitioner earlier as having become unnecessary.

¶26

Cont.Case (C).No.267 of 2008-S - 2 -

¶27

Subsequently, the complainant had filed an application in I.A.No.256 of 2008 in Cont.Case (C).No.267 of 2008.

¶28

By our order dated 25^th June, 2008, we had recalled our earlier order, disposing of the contempt petition.

¶29

Today, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has produced before us the orders passed by the respondents dated 31.07.2008. In that, they have informed the petitioner that the order of suspension passed by them has been revoked and he may come and report for duty with immediate effect.

¶30

In view of this development, at this stage, we need not have to proceed with the contempt proceedings. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are dropped.

¶31

However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner/complainant to approach this Court, if need arises in future.

¶32

Ordered accordingly.

¶33

H.L.Dattu Chief Justice

¶34

A.K.Basheer Judge

¶35

vku/-

Ajithkumar.T. v. Vice Admiral Sunil K.Damle & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajithkumar.T. v. Vice Admiral Sunil K.Damle & Another

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

The Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Indus Vs M.Beena, District Collector, Ernakulam

M/S.Wipro Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Wipro Ltd.,Kochi,Rep.by Its Sr.Execu Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by Secy.(Taxes),Tvm.

S.Rajan Vs a.S.Mohammed Sherif

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Allied Cashew Industries Kollam

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Tvm. Vs Shri.B.Mohanachandran Nair, Mangad, Klm.