This contempt case arose from alleged non-compliance of directions issued in a judgment dated 20/01/2009. The court directed the respondent to pass orders within the extended time limit and closed the file with liberty to move again.
Contempt case closed with liberty to move again if required.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931
Con.Case(C).No. 483 of 2009(S)
-----------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C).37375/2008 Dated 20/01/2009 ....................
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:
V.VIJAYASANKAR, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KAVANAL HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT (P.O), KOTTAYAM - 6.
BY MR.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL, ADVOCATE. MR.N.P.PRAJEESH, ADVOCATE.
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT:
SRI.P.K.MOHANTY, IAS, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST & WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY MR. A.J. VARGHESE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER.
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
------------------------------------------Contempt Case (C) No.483 OF 2009
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Alleging that the directions issued in Annexure-1 judgment have not been complied with, this Contempt Case is filed. The period granted by this Court as per Annexure-1 judgment was three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. A direction was given therein to the 1st respondent to take a decision on Exhibit P1 after hearing the parties. By a subsequent order, the period fixed by Annexure-1 judgment stands extended by six months. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent will have to pass orders within the extended period. I find force in the above submission. The respondent will see that orders are passed within the time which was granted in the application for extension.
Therefore, this Contempt Case is closed with liberty to move again, if required.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE
smp
V. Vijayasankar
Sri. P.K. Mohanty
T.R. Ramachandrannair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
