Disposed

Kasthuri Rajan and Others v. P.K.Santhoshakumar

Kerala HC22 Mar 2010Con.Case(C)/65/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt of court petition challenging compliance with a 2007 judgment, the High Court noted that the respondent issued directions in March 2010. The court held that without the petition, the action might not have occurred due to delay. Consequently, the respondent was directed to pay Rs. 5,000 as costs to the petitioner within one month, clarifying the petitioner retains the right to challen

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to receive Rs. 5,000 as costs from the respondent within one month.

Kasthuri Rajan and Others Vs P.K.Santhoshakumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 65 of 2010(S)

¶6

---------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.21453/2007 Dated 14/08/2007 ....................

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

1. KASTHURI RAJAN, AGED 55, W/O.LATE M.A.RAJAN, HARI NIVAS, PONKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. HARINARAYANAN.M.R., AGED 27, S/O.LATE M.A.RAJAN, HARI NIVAS, PONKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER GRISH M.R.

¶11

3. GIRISH.M.R., AGED 26, S/O.LATE M.A.RAJAN, HARI NIVAS, PONKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. MR.VIJU ABRAHAM MR.DOMINIC JOHNSON

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

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

¶15

P.K.SANTHOSHKUMAR, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANJIRAPALLY.

¶16

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR

¶17

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶19

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

¶20

Cont.Case (C).No.65 of 2010-S

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2010.

¶23

Judgment

¶24

The learned Government Pleader submits that the respondent Tahsildar has issued a decision on 12.3.2010 and directions have been issued to the Village Officer to effect mutation. The said action has been taken on the basis of Annexure-1 judgment which was issued on 14.8.2007 requiring such action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. This contempt of court case was filed on 14.1.2010 and the action followed only in March, 2010. Obviously, even the belated action taken as of now, would not have come but for the institution of this contempt of court case. Taking into consideration the enormous delay in the matter, the respondent is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs to the petitioner. Such amount shall be paid within a period of one

¶25

COC65/10 -: 2 :-

¶26

month. It is also clarified that the petitioner will be at liberty to agitate on any issue, if found aggrieved by the decision of the Tahsildar. This contempt of court case is ordered accordingly.

¶27

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,

¶28

Sha/2203

Kasthuri Rajan and Others v. P.K.Santhoshakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasthuri Rajan and Others v. P.K.Santhoshakumar

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 the Secretary Vs Sabu Joseph & Another

Sheela Joy Vs Managing Director,Kerala Water Authority

Elizabeth Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

M.Dakshayani Vs P.Kasthoori Thilakan

Ummusalma Vs Ravi

Raghuthaman (Died) and Others Vs Padmakshy