Disposed

Joseph John v. Muhammed Haneesh

Kerala HC26 May 2008Con.Case(C)/439/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt petition filed alleging disobedience of a High Court order by the District Collector. The Court accepted the Collector's letter stating no sanction was accorded for the trial run, dropped the contempt petition for the present, and reserved liberty to the complainant to approach the Court later.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dropped; liberty reserved to the complainant to approach the Court in future if need arises.

Joseph John Vs Muhammed Haneesh — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 439 of 2008(S)

¶6

--------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.203/2008 Dated 22/01/2008

¶7

PETITIONER/APPELLANT NO.3:

¶8

¶9

JOSEPH JOHN, S/O.JOHN, AGED 40 YEARS, AANI THOTTATHIL HOUSE, AYYAMBUZHA P.O., KOLLAMKODU-MANJANA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 581.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (CHELAKKADAN)

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3::

¶12

¶13

MR.MUHAMMED HANEESH, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN.

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

H.L.DATTU, C.J. & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶17

¶18

Cont. Case (Civil) No.439 of 2008-S

¶19

¶20

Dated, this the 26^th day of May, 2008

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

H.L.Dattu, C.J.

¶23

Alleging that the respondent herein has disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court in W.A.No.203/2008 dated 22-1-2008, the the third appellant/complainant is before us in this contempt petition filed under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, inter alia requesting us to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings and punish the respondent for the so called wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this Court.

¶24

Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Government Pleader appears for the respondent. The learned Government Pleader produced before us the letter received by him from the District Collector, Ernakulam dated 22-5-2008. In the said letter it is stated as under:

¶25

“Sri.Jospeh John, Aanithottathil House, Ayyampuzha P.O., has filed CC ( C ) No.439/08 alleging that the meeting convened on 17-3-2008 relating to the conduct of the trial run of metal crusher unit owned by M/s.Soma Enterprises, is in disobedience and in violation of the judgment dated 22-1-2008 of the Hon. High Court of Kerala.

¶26

It is humbly submitted no sanction has been accorded to M/s. Soma Enterprises for the conduct of the trial run of metal crusher unit at Ayyampuzha till date, from this office.”

¶27

COC No.439/2008 -2-

¶28

We have no reason to disbelieve the statement of the District Collector. Placing on record, the statement of the District Collector, the contempt petition is dropped, for the present. Liberty is reserved to the complainant, to approach this Court, if need arises in future.

¶29

Ordered accordingly.

¶30

(H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶31

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) JUDGE

¶32

Joseph John v. Muhammed Haneesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph John v. Muhammed Haneesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wandoor Co.Op.Rural Bank Ltd. Vs Jiji Thomson,Secy.to Govt.Dept.of Co.Ope

A.S.Lenin Vs Mr.K.P.Somarajan, M.D., Ksrtc

A.M.Gopalan Vs the Commr., Hr &Ce (Admn.),Kozhikode