Dismissed

M.Syed Alavi v. Mohanan Pillai

Kerala HC20 Feb 2013Con.Case(C)/1922/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt proceeding, the petitioner challenged a No Objection Certificate issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, alleging imposed conditions violated an earlier High Court order. The Court held the earlier order only demanded an NOC for tax payment, not a restriction on enjoyment, and dismissed the contempt case.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed without prejudice to the right to seek remedies against conditions in the NOC.

M.Syed Alavi Vs Mohanan Pillai — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/1ST PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1922 of 2012 (S) IN WP(C).29078/2011 ----------------------------------------------------IN WP(C).29078/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 16-12-2011

¶6

PETITIONER /1ST PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):

¶7

-------------------------------------

¶8

M.SYED ALAVI, T.C.9/314(3)PLRA F 42.2, PANNICKERS LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN SRI.A.S.SHAMMY RAJ SRI.P.SHANES.

¶10

RESPONDENT /3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C): --------------------------------------

¶11

MOHANAN PILLAI, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶12

BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY.

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rvs.

¶15

Con.Case(C).No. 1922 of 2012 (S) IN WP(C).29078/2011

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶18

ANNEXURE	I : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/12/2011 IN W.P.(C)nO.29078/2011(H) OF THE HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE	II : TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT HEREIN.
ANNEXURE	II(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD ISSUED FOR ANNEXURE-II.
ANNEXURE	III : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14/08/2012 ISSUED BY PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C)NO.29078/2011(H) THROUGH THEIR ADVOCATE REQUESTING THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO ISSUE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE.
ANNEXURE	IV : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23/08/2012 SENT BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL.
ANNEXURE	V : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY PETITIONER THROUGH HIS ADVOCATE TO THE RESPONDENT HEREIN.
ANNEXURE	VI : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO THE ADVOCATE GENERAL ON 27/09/2012 BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN REQUESTING FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FROM THE COURT, WHICH IS SENT TO THE PETITIONER'S ADVOCATE.
ANNEXURE	VII : TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 18/02/2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE	VIII : TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 18/02/2013 ISSUED TO S.A.JALEEL.
ANNEXURE	IX : TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 18/02/2013 ISSUED TO SHAHJAHAN S.
ANNEXURE	X : TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 18/02/2013 ISSUED TO SULEKHA BEEVI.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :

NIL.

/True Copy/

P.A.TO JUDGE

rvs.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶25

Cont. Case (C) No.1922 of 2012

¶26

¶27

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2013

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

W.P(C).No.29078/11 filed by the petitioner, along with other owners of the properties in question, was disposed of by judgment dated 16.12.2011, directing the third respondent therein to issue NOC concerning the properties of the petitioners in order to enable them to pay tax. This contempt case was filed alleging that the directions in the judgment were not complied with. During the pendency of this petition, the third respondent has issued NOC dated 18.2.2013 and copy of the same has been produced by the petitioner as Annexure VII. According to the petitioner, this NOC does not satisfy the directions in the judgment in as much as conditions have been imposed restraining the enjoyment of the properties by the petitioner. However, a reading of the judgment shows that all that this Court has directed was that NOC should be issued enabling the petitioners to pay tax in respect of the properties and this Court did not, in any manner, restrain the

¶30

COC.1922/12

¶31

¶32

respondents from imposing any condition. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the conditions that are imposed in the NOC, it is for the petitioner to work out remedies against the same. In such circumstances, I do not find that the petitioner has made out a case for proceeding against the respondents in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶33

Therefore, this contempt case is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek grievances against the conditions that are imposed in the NOC now issued.

¶34

kkb.20/2.

M.Syed Alavi v. Mohanan Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Syed Alavi v. Mohanan Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gokul Das C Vs N.Nagaraju

Sheeba Subramaniyan Vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

Soumini.P. Vs the General Manager

Jessi Cherian Vs Smt.Valsamma Mathew

M/S.Ogm Institute of Technical Society Vs Intelligence Inspector, Kollam

Shailaja Kumari Vs the State Bank of Travancore