Petitioner challenged the closure of a contempt case, claiming the respondent failed to finalize proceedings against a third party. The court held that initiation of action satisfied the directive and closed the case.
Contempt proceedings closed; respondent directed to ensure full implementation of directions.
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
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/24TH JYAISHTA 1934
Con.Case(C).No. 300 of 2012 (S) IN WPC/28080/2011
-------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.28080/2011 DATED 08-11-2011
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
NARAYANAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, MANNUR AMSOM DESOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, MANNUR.P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 642.
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.1:
KALADHARAN,(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD - 678 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED SHAFI
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
COC.NO.300/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEX 1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8/11/2011 IN WP(C)NO.28080/2011(H) OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
ANNEX 2 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14/11/2011 EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE 1 JUDGMENT AND COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION BY THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT ABOVE NAMED.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEX R1(A) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/3/2012.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO.JUDGE
sts
ANTONY DOMINIC,J
C.O.C.No.300 of 2012
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2012
JUDGMENT
By judgment dated 08.11.2011 in Writ Petition No.8080/2011, the respondent herein was ordered to finalise the proceedings initiated by him against the second respondent in the writ petition under the provisions of Act 28 of 2008. It is complaining of disobedience of the said direction, this contempt petition has been filed.
C.O.C.No.300/2012
: 2 :
requirement has been satisfied. Though, there is no case for continuing the contempt of courts case, it is clarified that it is the responsibility of the respondent to ensure that the directions issued are fully implemented. Therefore, he shall take appropriate action in the matter.
The contempt case is closed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
ln
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent's receipt of the writ directive and initiation of proceedings satisfied the court's earlier direction.
NARAYANAN
KALADHARAN
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
