Disposed

K.Lakshmikutty and Others v. Udayabanu

Kerala HC16 Jul 2010Con.Case(C)/638/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt of court case regarding failure to communicate orders in WPC.9729/2010. The court directed respondents to issue copies of orders passed on three petitioners upon production of the judgment's copy, dismissing its own proceedings as closed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to issue copies of orders passed on petitioners 1, 3 & 4 upon production of this judgment.

K.Lakshmikutty and Others Vs Udayabanu — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 638 of 2010(S)

¶6

-----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9729/2010 Dated 23/03/2010 ....................

¶7

PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS

¶8

¶9

K.LAKSHMIKUTTY, AGED 70, D/O.KUNJIKUTTY, PUTHOOR PUTHEN VEEDU, PURUMBUZHA P.O., KOLLAM.

¶10

SOMARAJAN, AGED 50, S/O. KOCHAPPY, KATTUVARI MUKALIL KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU, PERUMBUZHA P.O., KOLLAM.

¶11

SARASWATHY, AGED 52, D/O.CHADRAKSHI, PANAVILA VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, KOTTAMKARA, KOLLAM.

¶12

AHAMMAD KUNJU, AGED 67, S/O.ASANARUKUNJU, CHERUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THRIPPALAZHIKAM MURI, KOLLAM.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G

¶14

RESPONDENT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT

¶15

¶16

UDAYABHANU, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), LA(NO.II), KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM.

¶17

MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶20

COC No.638 of 2010

¶21

Dated, this the 16^th day of July, 2010

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Writ Petition No.9729/2010 filed by the petitioners was disposed of by judgment dated 23/03/2010 directing that applications made by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act shall be considered and orders thereon shall be passed in the manner as directed in the judgment. This contempt of court case has been filed complaining that orders have not been passed on the applications as directed in the judgment.

¶24

Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions and submits that orders have been passed on the applications made by petitioners 1, 3 & 4 on 09/06/2010, 25/06/2010 & 05/07/2010 respectively. Insofar as the 2^nd petitioner is concerned, it is stated that he did not produce the legal heirship certificate, and that notice dated 22/04/2010 issued requiring production of the Legal Heirship Certificate has been returned with the endorsement of the Postal Authorities that 'addressee left'.

¶25

COC No.638/2010

¶26

-2-

¶27

However, learned counsel for the petitioners complained

¶28

that orders, which are stated to have been passed, have not been communicated to them.

¶29

In view the above, though I close this contempt of court case recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader, I direct the respondents to issue copies of the orders passed in respect of petitioners 1, 3 & 4 on the production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioners.

¶30

This contempt of court case is closed.

¶31

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶32

K.Lakshmikutty and Others v. Udayabanu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Lakshmikutty and Others v. Udayabanu

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

State of Kerala, Rep. by Secretary Vs v.K.Rajan(Fermerly Plant Supervisor

Jaleshkumar L.K. Vs State of Kerala and Others

K.Rajasekharan Pillai and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

Thresia Kurian Vs M.N.Vijayan

M.S.Purushan Vs Raveendran

V.Viswanathan Vs State of Kerala