Dismissed

V.Balaram, Councillor, Varkala Municipal v. Santhish Kumar, Tahsildar, Chirayinkeezh

Kerala HC16 Feb 2010Con.Case(C)/1383/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a final contempt case regarding non-compliance with an earlier judgment in WP(C) 33034/2008. The petitioner alleged failure to act on directions. The court examined the counter-affidavit, which stated that pending patta applications were either granted or rejected with reasons. Finding these actions discharged the duty, the court closed the contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The contempt proceedings were closed. No specific penalty or order was imposed as the alleged non-compliance was found to be satisfied.

V.Balaram, Councillor, Varkala Municipal Vs Santhish Kumar… — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931

¶7

Con.Case(C).No. 1383 of 2009(S)

¶8

------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33034/2008

¶9

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶10

¶11

V.BALARAM, COUNCILLOR, VARKALA MUNICIPAL VARKALA PO, PIN 695 141, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶14

¶15

SANTHOSHKUMAR, TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, ATTINGAL PO.

¶16

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL

¶17

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

P.R. RAMAN Ag. CJ & C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CONT. CASE (C) 1383 OF 2009

¶20

DATED THIS, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010.

¶21

Raman, Ag. CJ.

¶22

This contempt case has been filed alleging non compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment rendered in WP(C) 33034/2008.

¶23

Pursuant to the notice issued, a counter affidavit has been filed

¶24

reporting compliance. The respondent was also present.

¶25

The direction contained in para 3 of the judgment is to the

¶26

following effect:

¶27

"This writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to take appropriate action in the cases of those applicants pointed out in the additional affidavit and others, if any pending, in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. If any application cannot be considered, the same shall be duly intimated to the applicant concerned within the said time."

¶28

In the light of the direction, all that is to be done by the 4th respondent is to

¶29

¶30

Cont. Case (C) 1383/2009

¶31

dispose of the applications filed by the applicants and if, for any reason any application could not be considered, the same is to be informed duly to the applicant concerned. As per the averments made in the counter affidavit, in cases where patta could be granted, the same has been issued and in cases, where patta could not be issued, the same has been communicated to the applicants with reasoning. In that view of the matter, non issuance of patta for the reasons stated, is a matter, which the aggrieved party can take up in separate proceedings.

¶32

In the above circumstances, the contempt is closed.

¶33

P.R. RAMAN, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶34

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE).

¶35

knc/-

V.Balaram, Councillor, Varkala Municipal v. Santhish Kumar, Tahsildar, Chirayinkeezh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Balaram, Councillor, Varkala Municipal v. Santhish Kumar, Tahsildar, Chirayinkeezh

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

Smt.Sasikala Vs Smt.Girija Devi D.S.

Rajani Mohan Vs Mr.Thankachan

C.C.Kochuthressia Vs Saraswathi

Bhuneswary Vs K.Radhakrishnan

Sreedevi Vs Jaick Joseph

State of Kerala Vs K.K. Sreenivasan