Dismissed

T.P.Abdurahiman v. P.M.Kunjappan

Kerala HC19 Dec 2014Con.Case(C)/1244/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case for failure to finalize writ proceedings as previously directed, the Court condoned the delay due to administrative reasons and closed the matter without prejudice to the petitioners' right to challenge the impugned order via writ.

What did the court decide?

The contempt proceeding was closed; delay was condoned; matter disposed of without prejudice to the writ challenge against the impugned order.

T.P.Abdurahiman Vs P.M.Kunjappan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1244 of 2014 (S)

¶6

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 24477/2013 DATED 07-10-2013) ----------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:-

¶8

1. T.P.ABDURAHIMAN,AGED 80 YEARS,S/O.ABUBACKER, THEKKEPURAYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKOTH AMSOM,

¶9

PANNUR, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

2. ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 69 YEARS,S/O.KUNHAMMED,

¶11

OTHAYOTH HOUSE, MADAKKUNNU P.O.,

¶12

KOTTATHARA AMSOM DESOM, KALPETTA VIA, WAYANAD.

¶13

3. K.K.ABOOBACKER, AGED 64 YEARS,S/O.KUNHIPERI,

¶14

PARAKKAMBANATH HOUSE, ELETTIL P.O.,

¶15

KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE.

¶16

4. A.KOMU, AGED 62 YEARS,

¶17

S/O.BEERANKUTTY, KUNNATH KODAKKAD HOUSE,

¶18

CHEROOTTY NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, PUTHIYARA P.O.,

¶19

KOZHIKODE.

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS

¶21

RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT :

¶22

P.M.KUNJAPPAN, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THASILDAR, VYTHIRI TALUK, WYNAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673 576.

¶23

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.FAZIL

¶24

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

COC.NO.1244/2014

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶29

ANNEX 1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7/10/2013 IN WP(C).NO.24477/2013 ANNEX II COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.2713/2014 IN WPC.NO.24477/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

¶31

ANNEX R1(A) COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A3-25000/11 DATED 29/11/2014.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶36

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1244 of 2014 -------------------------------------------

¶37

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2014

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

This proceeding arises from Annexure A1 judgment dated 07.10.2013 in WP(C) No.24477/2013, whereby the 1^st respondent was directed to finalise the proceedings on the basis of Exts.P4, P5 and P6, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners at the earliest. Subsequently, the respondent in the writ petition filed I.A.No.2713 of 2014, to extend the time. It was considered and allowed as per Annexure II order dated 04.03.2014. Still, the matter was not finalised, which amounts to an offence under the Contempt of Court Act and hence the present petition.

¶40

An affidavit has been filed from the part of the respondents referring to the sequence of events. It is stated that the matter has been finalised as directed by this Court, but there occurred some unfortunate delay because of various administrative reasons and procedures to be complied with. Sincere regret is expressed, tendering unconditional apology with regard to the delay involved. A copy of the order dated

¶41

Cont. Case (Civil) No.1244/2014

¶42

¶43

29.11.2014, has been produced along with the said affidavit as AnnexureR1(a).

¶44

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the disposal of the matter is not in terms of the direction given by this Court and hence the same is not correct or sustainable. It is also stated that the petitioners have already moved this Court by way of writ petition, challenging the said order.

¶45

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the delay involved can be condoned and it is condoned accordingly. No further steps are required to be pursued in view of the turn of events. The matter is closed without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioners to pursue the concerned writ petition, wherein challenge has been raised against Ext.R1(a).

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶48

T.P.Abdurahiman v. P.M.Kunjappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P.Abdurahiman v. P.M.Kunjappan

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

M/S.Varkey Retail Ventures (P) Ltd. Vs South Indian Bank

Asokan Vs the Kollam Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

M.J.George Vs Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

T.Rajan Vs Suman, Intelligence Inspector

Limi Leni Vs State Bank of India

T.Rajan Vs the Intelligence Inspector