In a civil contempt proceeding, the Court examined whether a Forest Officer's order denying the petitioner's request to move an elephant anywhere in Kerala violated an earlier order permitting movement only within the officer's jurisdiction. The Court held the orders were not contrary.
The contempt proceedings (C.O.C.) have been dismissed.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/5TH MAGHA 1933
COC.No. 9 of 2012 (S)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.34151/2011 DATED 20-12-2011
PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ----------------------
K.BHARATHAN S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, 36 YEARS, MULLAPPILLY HOUSE, POONKUNNAM.P.O., THRISSUR DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT: --------------------------
C.T.JOJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, [FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER] DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER OFFICE OF THE FOREST DIVISIONAL OFFICER NENMARA.P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN-678 508.
BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JAMES KURIAN
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
COC.No. 9 of 2012 (S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
ANNEXURE R(a) - COPY OF APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DT. 30.11.2011. //TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
....................................................... C.O.C.9/2012
.............................................. Dated this the 25th day of January, 2012
JUDGMENT
Annexure-A order was passed by this Court in W.P.(C). 34151/2011, directing that the petitioner would be permitted to take the elephant for treatment purposes to any place within the jurisdiction of the second respondent. In this petition, it is alleged that contrary to the direction, his request was turned down by Annexure-B order and that therefore, respondent has committed contempt of Court warranting proceedings against him.
C.O.C.9/12
2
turned down in Annexure-B. Thus, what was denied to the petitioner was his request for taking the elephant to places in Kerala State and what was directed by this Court was only to allow the movement of the elephant within the jurisdiction of the second respondent. Such an order (Annexure-B) cannot said to be contrary to Annexure-A order warranting proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.
C.O.C is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge
mrcs
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Denial by the Divisional Forest Officer to permit elephant movement for feed and treatment across Kerala State constitutes contempt of the earlier order permitting movement only within the
Whether such a denial warrants proceedings for contempt of court.
Whether the Respondent's order denying the broader request is contrary to the Interim Order allowing limited movement.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.BHARATHAN
C.T.JOJU
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
