In this contempt proceeding, the Kerala High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since compliance time was extended after filing, no explanation was required and the case must be closed rather than examined on merits.
The contempt case proceedings are closed and not to be proceeded with.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932
Con.Case(C).No. 1442 of 2010(S)
------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23915/2009
PETITIONER(S):
BY ADV. SRI.P.PUSHPARAJAN
SRI.SREEVALSAN.V
RESPONDENT(S):
M.R.ABHILASH,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O.K.RAGHAVAN,SECRETARY,THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,THRISSUR,PIN-680 001.
ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO FOR R1
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T.SANKARAN, J .
Con.Case(C)No.1442 OF 2010
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011
ORDER
The Contempt Case is filed by the Writ
Petitioners alleging that the respondent willfully
and deliberately violated the directions contained
in the judgment dated 2nd June, 2010.
2. As per the order passed in I.A.No.16228 of
2010 in WP(C) No.23915 of 2009, the time for
compliance was extended for a period of two months
from 12.11.2010.
3. Along with the additional counter affidavit
filed in the case, the respondent has produced
Ext.R1 the decision taken by the Thrissur
Municipality in the meeting of the Council on
10.1.2011.
Con.Case(C)No.1442 OF 2010 2
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that Ext.R1 does not relate to the
directions issued by this court in WP(C) No.23915
of 2009 and the directions in the judgment have not
been complied with at all. The learned counsel
appearing for the respondent pointed out that the
directions in W.P.(C) No.23915 of 2009 have been
referred to in Ext.R1 and the Council has taken a
decision thereof. The decision of the Council is
in compliance with the directions contained in the
judgment.
5. The Municipality has taken a decision
against the Writ Petitioners. If the petitioners
are aggrieved, they have to challenge the same. On
the ground that the decision taken by the Council
of the Municipality is not favourable to the Writ
Petitioners, or on the ground that the order is bad
otherwise, the Contempt Case cannot be proceeded
with. It is true that the time for compliance was
extended after the Contempt Case was filed. But
Con.Case(C)No.1442 OF 2010 3
the time having been extended, further proceedings
in the Contempt Case cannot be taken. It is not
necessary to decide in the Contempt Case whether
the directions in the judgment have been properly
complied with in Ext.R1. If a challenge is made
against Ext.R1, the court dealing with the Writ
Petition will have to decide the same. There is no
ground to proceed with the Contempt Case. The
Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
cms
P.C.SIMON
C.P.BABY
P.J.JOY
M.R.ABHILASH
K.T.SANKARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court