Dismissed

Jyothish Chandra.v v. Anand Singh I.A.S.

Kerala HC25 Jan 2012Con.Case(C)/893/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case arising from non-compliance with earlier writ directions regarding government job appointments for physically handicapped persons, the court examined the respondent's compliance affidavit. Finding the directives complied with in essence, the court held that specific grievances regarding the manner of implementation must be challenged in a separate proceeding. The contempt petiti

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is closed with the direction that any grievance regarding the manner of compliance be raised in a separate proceeding.

Jyothish Chandra.v Vs Anand Singh I.A.S. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/5TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

COC.No. 893 of 2011 (S)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.28463/2004 DATED 15-10-2010

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1ST PETITIONER IN WPC:

¶8

JYOTHISH CHANDRA.V S/o SANKARAN NEAR RED STAR READING ROOM, P.O.TALIPARAMBA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO

¶10

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT IN WPC:

¶11

1 ANAND SINGH I. A. S. (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER), THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MUHAMMED SHAH

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

DCS

¶15

COC.No. 893 of 2011 (S)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES :-

¶18

ANNEXURE A1	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/10/2010 IN W.P.(C) 28463/2004 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
ANNEXURE A2	COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD
ANNEXURE A3	COPY OF THE CONTEMPT NOTICE DATED 09.06.2011
ANNEXURE A4	COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD

¶19

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES :- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

S.SIRI JAGAN

C.O.(C)NO.893 OF 2011

¶26

- - - - Dated this the 25^th day of January 2012

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner alleges non-compliance with the directions in Annex.A1 judgment, I directed as follows:

¶29

“In view of the said judgment I am satisfied that this writ petition has also to be disposed of in terms of that judgment. Accordingly the second respondent District Collector shall take necessary action in accordance with Ext.P5 Government order, vacancies which can be filled up by physically handicapped persons shall be identified and appointments shall be made as ordered therein, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months of production of a copy of this judgment, if not already done. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance.

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of as above.”

¶31

The respondent has filed affidavits showing how they have complied with the directions. Going by the same, I am satisfied that the respondent has complied with the directions. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the way in which it was done. If the petitioner has any grievance against the manner in which the same has been done, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same appropriately. Without prejudice to that right, this contempt case is closed.

¶32

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶33

STU

¶34

¶35

Jyothish Chandra.v v. Anand Singh I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyothish Chandra.v v. Anand Singh I.A.S.

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

T.M.Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala

Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitbale Trust Vs Union of India

Siny Vs the Secretary to Government Food and Civil Supplies Dept.

N.Gangadharan Vs Sri.a.Shajahan I.A.S

M.Thankamma Vs Shri.Sivasankaran

Manjusha S.L. Vs State of Kerala