Disposed

Jolly v. Sri.T.K.Manojkumar.Ias

Kerala HC14 Nov 2011Con.Case(C)/997/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt case arises from alleged disobedience of a writ order under Kerala Land Reforms Rules. The court accepted the respondent's explanation that the order was inadvertently attributed to the petitioner's addl. 3rd respondent (Commissioner) instead of the relevant Chairperson, due to their dual roles. The case was dismissed as closed.

What did the court decide?

None granted; contempt case closed.

Jolly Vs Sri.T.K.Manojkumar.Ias — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 997 of 2011(S)

¶6

-------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.30432/2010 Dated 14/10/2010 ...............................................................

¶7

PETITIONER / PETITIONER IN W.P.(c)NO.30432/2010 : --------------------------------------------------------------------------JOLLY,W/O.K.E.ANTONY,AGED 50, KALATHIL HOUSE,THUNDATHU KADAVU, VARAPPUZHA P.O.,ERNAKULAM.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)

¶9

RESPONDENT / ADDL. 3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.(c)NO.30432/2010 : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶10

T.K.MANOJ KUMAR (IAS), AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER,COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶11

BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH

¶12

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COC.NO.997/2011

APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES :

¶17

ANNEXURE A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14-10-2010 IN WP(C) NO.30432/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶18

ANNEXURE A2 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 28-10-2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶19

ANNEXURE A3 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 18-1-2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶20

ANNEXURE A4 : COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SHOWING ACCEPTANCE OF ANNEX.A3 BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶26

Cont. Case (C) No. 997 OF 2011

¶27

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2011

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

W.P.C.30432/10 filed by the petitioner was disposed of

¶30

by judgment dated 14.10.2010 directing consideration of the representation made under Rule 29 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970. It is complaining

¶31

disobedience of the said order, this writ petition has been filed.

¶32

The learned Government Pleader submits that on 10.10.2011 an order has been passed. However, the said order has been passed by the Chairperson of the State Land Board and not by the additional 3^rd respondent. According to the learned Government Pleader such a mistake has occurred for the reason that the Chairperson of the State Land Board is also the Commissioner for land revenue and

¶33

because of that such a mistake is crept in the order.

¶34

C.O.(C) No. 997 OF 2011

¶35

:2 :

¶36

Now the mistake in the order dated 10.10.2011

¶37

has been clarified as above, If the petitioner is aggrieved by that order, it is for the petitioner to approach the said authority against such order.

¶38

The contempt case is thus closed.

¶39

ul/-

¶40

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE [true copy] P.S. to Judge

Jolly v. Sri.T.K.Manojkumar.Ias

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jolly v. Sri.T.K.Manojkumar.Ias

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

Hema V.K. and Others Vs K.R.Mohanan and Another

S.v.P.Pookoya and Others Vs P.P.Atta and Another

Commonwealth Trust (India) Ltd. Vs Reg.P.F.Commissioner

U.P.C.Abdul Rahiman Vs B.Mohammed Jamal

Prabhakaran.K.S. Vs M. Anilkumar

Joseph N Jose Vs Registration Inspector General