Disposed

Baisil Attipetty @ Basil.a.G v. K. Velayudhan

Kerala HC11 Sept 2012Con.Case(C)/674/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case, the petitioner alleged non-compliance of directions from a previous writ judgment. The court found the University corrected an arithmetical error without notice. The judge dismissed the contempt proceeding, leaving the petitioner's remedy to a pending writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; respondents not liable to be proceeded with.

Baisil Attipetty @ Basil.a.G Vs K. Velayudhan — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/20TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 674 of 2012 (S)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.17134/2010 DATED 12-12-2011.

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER- (PARTY IN PERSON):

¶8

BAISIL ATTIPPETY @ BASIL. A.G., ATTIPETTY HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., KOCHI-682 509.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.A.G.BASIL. (PARTY IN PERSON)

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. K. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 58, S/O K.V. KUTTAPPAN, REGISTRAR, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSSKRIT, KALADY-683 574.

¶12

2. T.L. SUSEELAN, AGED 50,

¶13

S/O LAKSHMANAN NAMBOOTHIRIPAD, FINANCE OFFICER, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY-683 574.

¶14

3. J. PRASAD, AGED 59, S/O LATE P. JANARDHANAN, VICE CHANCELLOR, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY-683 574.

¶15

BY SRI.ARUN B.VARGHESE,SC, SREE SANKARACHARYA UTY.

¶16

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

Con.Case(C).No. 674 of 2012 (S)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶21

ANNEXURE I COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 12/03/2012 AND 12/12/2011 IN W.P.(C)NO. 17134/2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/12/2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY FORWARDING ANNEXURE-I JUDGMENT. ANNEXURE III COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/02/2012 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE IIIA COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/02/2012 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE IIIB COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/02/2012 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶23

EXT.R1A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.AD.D/2586/SSUS/2010 DATED 27/04/2012.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶28

-----------------------------------------Contempt Case (C) No.674 OF 2012 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 11^th day of September, 2012.

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioner alleging non compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Annexure-I. The writ petition was disposed of directing the University to complete various actions. It is alleged in the Contempt Case that the directions have not been fully complied with.

¶31

An affidavit has been filed by the 1^st respondent. It is averred in paragraph 2 therein that the University has sanctioned the pension and commuted value of pension and complied all the directions issued in Annexure A1 judgment and the compliance was communicated by Annexure R1(a).

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the said proceedings were taken back from the petitioner for the alleged curing of a defect, which was without notice to the petitioner.

¶33

Contempt Case (C) No.674/2012

¶34

¶35

Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that only to correct an arithmetical error, proceedings were called back and fresh proceedings have been issued. It is also pointed out that challenging the fixation of liability and other factors, the petitioner has filed a writ petition as W.P.(C) No.9550/2012.

¶36

I am satisfied that the respondents are not liable to be proceeded with under the Contempt of Courts Act. Leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to adjudicate the matter in the pending writ petition, this Contempt Case is closed.

¶37

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE

¶38

smp

Baisil Attipetty @ Basil.a.G v. K. Velayudhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baisil Attipetty @ Basil.a.G v. K. Velayudhan

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

P.G.Raghavan Pillai Vs P.J.Thomas

Saramma Joseph & Others Vs State of Kerala

M.Vijayakumaran Vs the Green Channel Clearance Committee

The Manager, Higher Secondary Vs Sri.M.Sivasankar

K.Muhammed Ashaf Vs the District Collector, Trivandrum

M.K.Hamsa,(Died),Ayisha and Another Vs Hindustant Petroleum Corporation Ltd. &