Disposed

Santhamma Purushothaman v. K.G.Raju

Kerala HC23 May 2008Con.Case(C)/689/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that an order passed without hearing the petitioner does not constitute contempt. It directed that if live lines contrary to court orders were laid, the petitioner could seek appropriate relief against the Electricity Board from the ADM.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner instructed to approach the ADM if live lines were laid contrary to the order warranting removal of the line.

Santhamma Purushothaman Vs K.G.Raju — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 689 of 2008(S)

¶6

-----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.17127/2007 Dated 11/06/2007

¶7

: PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

SANTHAMMA PURUSHOTHAMAN, W/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, THRIKKALPURATHU HOUSE, GRAMAM MURI, ENNAKADU, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:

¶12

¶13

K.G. RAJU,

¶14

FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶15

ASHOK KUMAR,

¶16

FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOLLAKADAVU, ALAPPUZHA.

¶17

SHRI.K.S.ANIL, SC

¶18

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶20

----------------------------------------------Contempt of Court Case No. 689 of 2008

¶21

Dated, this the 23^rd day of May, 2008

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board.

¶24

The contempt petition is filed for the reason that petitioner was not heard before annexure C order is passed. It is clear from annexure C order that it was issued on 11/06/2007 i.e. the date on which this Court pronounced the judgment. Therefore, the order was passed without noticing the judgment and there cannot be any contempt. However, I have gone through annexure C order and I find that the order is quite reasonable in as much as the ADM has approved drawal of only weather proof cable of 28 meters drawn from the post standing in petitioner's property. The alternate route suggested involve drawal of 140 m. of live line, which was rightly rejected by the ADM. Petitioner has a further case that instead of drawing weather proof cable, live line is drawn from the post standing in petitioner's property and such live line is passing over his property. If this is done, it is clear violation of annexure C order, which authorises drawal of only 28 meters of weather proof cable over petitioner's property. If live line is drawn

¶25

COC No.689/2008

¶26

-2-

¶27

contrary to the proposal approved by the ADM, petitioner can bring it to the notice of the ADM and ADM will pass appropriate orders against 2nd respondent including removal of the live line. However, if the line is drawn with weather proof cable in terms of the order, then the matter will stand settled with the order of the ADM.

¶28

The contempt of court case is disposed of as above.

¶29

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶30

Santhamma Purushothaman v. K.G.Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhamma Purushothaman v. K.G.Raju

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

N.Kausalya Vs Madhukar Gupta

T. John Rose Vs Sri.Kamaruddin,Asst.Commissioner(Assmt)

Dr.Joyce Mammen Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,Tvm

Sulaiman.M. Vs Deputy Tahsildar

R.Thiruvenkatam Vs State of Kerala

M.C.Mathew Vs Eduthua Panchayath