Disposed

Mansoor Ali v. Gopalakrishnan

Kerala HC20 Oct 2010Con.Case(C)/1185/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two contempt cases where the respondent failed to promptly pass interim orders on vehicle custody after sand seizure. Despite an explanation of backlog, the Court found the delay unsatisfactory but opted against continuing proceedings due to subsequent release of vehicles, awarding nominal costs instead.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to pay Rs. 1,000 as costs to petitioner, to be debited from salary; contempt cases disposed of.

Mansoor Ali Vs Gopalakrishnan — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1185 of 2010(S)

¶6

---------------------------------------------[THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.26163/2010 DATED 18/08/2010]

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

MANSOOR ALI, S/O.AHAMMED, AGE 28 YEARS, KOKKANCHERY HOUSE, KEEZHUPARAMBU, KUNIYIL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR.

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

----------------------

¶13

GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, PIN-679 322.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH.

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2010, ALONG WITH CONT. CASE (CIVIL).NO. 1188/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

prv.

¶17

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶18

Con.Case Nos.1185 & 1188 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 20^th day of October, 2010.

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

In both these contempt cases the petitioners allege non compliance with a common judgment directing passing of orders regarding interim custody of the vehicle on the applications submitted by them, pursuant to seizure of vehicles for alleged illegal transportation of river sand. Orders were passed only on 18.8.2010 although the judgment was on 18-08-2010. The explanation offered by the respondent is that orders had to be passed in more than 2000 cases. That explanation does not seem to be satisfactory at all. If there was difficulty for the respondent to pass orders within the time prescribed, it was for him to seek extension of time from this Court. Instead he simply sat on the order. However, now that the vehicles have been released subsequently, I am not inclined to continue further proceedings in the contempt case. However, the respondent shall pay Rs.1,000/- in each case as costs to the petitioner, which shall be debited to the salary of the respondent and shall not be debited to the State exchequer. The contempt cases are disposed of accordingly.

¶21

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE.

¶22

mns

Mansoor Ali v. Gopalakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansoor Ali v. Gopalakrishnan

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

U.K.Bhasi Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

V.R.Vanaja Vs State of Kerala

M.C.Satheesan Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

K.Reghu Vs Secretary

Rathi.S Vs State of Kerala

K.Devadas Vs General Manager(Hrm)Union Bank of India