Dismissed

T.G.Muraleedharan Pillai & Others v. the Secretary to Govt & Others

Kerala HC8 Feb 2011Con.Case(C)/39/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a previous judgment. The Court held that since the Government had considered the claim and passed an order rejecting it, no contempt liability was established regardless of whether the claimers thought the order was contrary to the previous directions.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; no case of contempt made out.

T.G.Muraleedharan Pillai & Others Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932

¶4

Con.Case(C).No. 39 of 2011(S)

¶5

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

¶6

( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20169/2010 Dated 16/07/2010)

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

1. T.G.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.T.G.GOPALA PILLAI,'KIRANAM',MUDIYOORKONAM.P.O., PANDALAM, PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR LECTURER IN AGRICULTURE, EXTENSION TRANINIG CENTRE, ETC P.O. KOTTARAKKARA.

¶10

2. P.O.PAUL, AGED 51 YEARS,S/O.OUSEPH, PEREPPADAN HOUSE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR LECTURER IN AGRICULTURE, EXTENSION TRANING CENTRE, ETC.P.O., KOTTARAKKARA.

¶11

3. M.G.BABU, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. M.V.GANGADHARAN, MANIYALIL HOUSE, KANJIRAKKADU, RAYONPURAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR LECTURER IN AGRICULTURE, EXTENSION TRAINING CENTRE, MANNUTHY.

¶12

4. M.RENUKUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS,

¶13

S/O. SANKARAN, MARAVANCHERRY HOUSE, KUNDUKADU.P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR LECTURER IN AGRICULTURE, EXTENSION TRAINING CENTRE MANNUTHY.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED

¶15

SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN

¶16

SMT.BHAMA G. NAIR

¶17

SRI.V.K.MEETHIANKUNJU SRI.N.M.SIYAD

¶18

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN WPC

¶19

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

¶20

1. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN) THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT(RD), LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶21

2. A.SHAJAHAN (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN) THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LMS COMPOUND THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶22

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH

¶23

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.20169/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶26

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

¶27

COC.No.39 OF 2011 & IA.No.16715/2010

¶28

in WP(c).No.20169/2010

¶29

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

¶30

Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2011

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

WP(c).No.20169/2010 was disposed of by judgment dated 16^th July, 2010 directing that the claim of the petitioners for declaration of their probation as Junior Lecturer (Agriculture) shall be considered by the Government.

¶33

This Contempt Case is filed alleging non-compliance with the aforesaid directions. Meanwhile the respondents in the Writ petition filed I.A.No.16715/2010 in WP(c).No.20169/2010 for extension of time.

¶34

While the matter is pending, Government have passed order dated 14.1.2011 dealing with the claim of the petitioners for declaration of their probation and their claim has been rejected.

¶35

Though the counsel for the petitioners contended that this order is contrary to the directions in the judgment, I am unable to agree with this contention. This is for the reason that by the judgment, this court only directed that the claim of the petitioners for declaration of their probation shall be considered and orders thereon shall be passed. If for any reason, the order is

¶36

COC.No.39/2011 & I.A.NO.16715/2010

¶37

:2 :

¶38

illegal, it is for the petitioners to challenge the said order and seek appropriate reliefs. No case of contempt has been made out. Contempt is closed.

¶39

Now that the order has been passed, no further orders are necessary in I.A.No.16715/2010 filed for extension of time.

¶40

It is made clear that it will be open to the petitioners to seek

¶41

their remedies against the order dated 14.1.2011.

¶42

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶43

vi/

T.G.Muraleedharan Pillai & Others v. the Secretary to Govt & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.G.Muraleedharan Pillai & Others v. the Secretary to Govt & Others

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

Reni Sebastian Vs Dr.P.K.Narayanan

T.P.Rajan Vs Chief Conservator of Forests

Mathew.M.S Vs Dtpc

Marzook.P.M Vs Passport Officer and Another

P.O.Thomas and Another Vs Land Revenue Commissioner and Others

Kannil Kumar Vs State of Kerala & Others