Allowed

V.Vijayakumar v. P.Jayakumar

Kerala HC9 Jul 2010RP/596/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition was allowed, recalling a judgment that had closed a contempt petition. The High Court held that the contempt was erroneously closed because an order admitting SLR workers was a general order, not passed based on the petitioners' representation underlying the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; order closing the contempt is recalled; matter posted for admission of contempt.

V.Vijayakumar Vs P.Jayakumar — 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 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

RP.No. 596 of 2010(S) --------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN COC.434/2010

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN COC/PETITIONER IN WPC

¶7

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

¶8

1. V.VIJAYAKUMAR THARAYILPUTHEN VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA, KAVANAD PO, KOLLAM.

¶9

2. K.MOHANAN,THARAYILPUTHEN VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA, KAVANAD PO, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ ANIL ELGIN SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN COC --------------------------------------------------------

¶12

P.JAYAKUMAR(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),THE SECRETARY IRRIGATION (G W),DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU

¶14

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.596 OF 2010

¶16

¶17

Con.Case(C) No.434 OF 2010 (S)

¶18

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

¶19

Dated this the 9^th day of July, 2010

¶20

O R D ER

¶21

Writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 29^th of October 2009 directing that orders be passed on Ext.P14 representation.

¶22

When the contempt was considered, recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that by order dated 01/02/2010, petitioners' names have been included in the list of SLR workers, on the assumption that the said order dated 01/02/2010 was passed considering the representation made by the petitioner, contempt petition was closed.

¶23

Now the order dated 01/02/2010 has been produced as Annexure 2 in this review petition, which shows that this order was not passed with reference to Ext.P14, but is a general order. Therefore, the basis on which the contempt was closed was

RP No.596/10

:2 :

erroneous.

In view of the above, the review petition is allowed and

¶28

the judgment dated 8^th of June, 2010 closing the contempt is

¶29

recalled.

¶30

Post the contempt for admission.

¶31

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶32

V.Vijayakumar v. P.Jayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Vijayakumar v. P.Jayakumar

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

Balasubramania Kurup Vs the Sub Registrar and Others

Ajitha Shaji Vs Union of India

Mr.Arun A.C Vs Kerala Institute for Local Admn.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs BSNL Security Staff Association & Others

Shylajakumari and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Pushpa T Vs Central Bank of India