Dismissed

Ouseph Varkey v. M.Beena, Dist.Collector, Ekm.

Kerala HC13 Dec 2010Con.Case(C)/1139/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed a contempt petition filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance with its impugned directions. The bench held that it had only directed the District Collector to consider and pass orders, which was done. The court rejected the submission that the orders were wrong and directed the petitioner to file appropriate challenging remedies.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case was closed.

Ouseph Varkey Vs M.Beena, Dist.Collector, Ekm. — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1139 of 2010(S) ------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16112/2010 ....................

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

OUSEPH VARKEY AGED 79 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH (LATE) CHERUMTHADATHIL HOUSE, MONIPPALLY-PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶11

M.BEENA I.A.S., (AGE & FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN) DISTRICT COLECTOR ERNAKULAM.

¶12

GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶15

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

¶16

Contempt Case (C).No. 1139 of 2010

¶17

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

¶18

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2010

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The petitioner complains of non-compliance with the Annexure A

¶21

judgment,wherein I had issued the following directions:

¶22

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P13 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the survey has to be completed, the same also shall be completed within the said period.”

¶23

Admittedly, now Annexure H order has been passed by the District Collector pursuant to the judgment. According to the petitioner, the said order is not in accordance with the directions in Annexure A judgment. I find that I had only directed the District Collector to consider and pass orders on Ext.P13, which has been done by Annexure H order. If the petitioner is of opinion that the said order is wrong, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same appropriately. That being so, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Annexure H order appropriately, this contempt case is closed.

¶24

sdk+

¶25

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶26

///True copy///

¶27

P.A. to Judge

¶28

Ouseph Varkey v. M.Beena, Dist.Collector, Ekm.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ouseph Varkey v. M.Beena, Dist.Collector, Ekm.

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

C.R.Bhavadas Vs K.v.Mohankumar

Sumesh Vs Dadendrakumar Dodawat

Colonel R.Alagarraj Vs Sri.Pradip Kumar

State of Kerala Vs a.Kamalamma

C.O.Poulose Vs Prl.Secretary to Govt. Lsgd(Rd)Secretari

M/S.Ashok Wood Works & Timber Industeis Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes