Dismissed

N.v.Sadanandan @ K.Puram Sadanandan v. Anand Prakash

Kerala HC4 Apr 2014Con.Case(C)/230/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt matter, the petitioner challenged the installation of a barricade at a railway wicket gate by railway authorities. The court observed that the barricade did not hinder student movement, no complaints were raised by school or parent-teacher authorities, and arrangements were made to ensure safe passage. Consequently, the court dropped the proceedings and closed the case.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in the contempt case were dropped and the case was closed.

N.v.Sadanandan @ K.Puram Sadanandan Vs Anand Prakash — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/14TH CHAITHRA, 1936

¶6

Con.Case(C).No. 230 of 2014 (S)

¶7

¶8

WP(C) 3097/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10/2/2014

¶9

PETITIONER(S):

¶10

N.V.SADANANDAN @ K.PURAM SADANANDAN, AGED 54 YEARS S/O C.V. DAMODARAN NAIR, SURTHILAYAM KERALADEHEESWARAPURAM P.O, TANALUR, MALAPPURAM

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

ANAND PRAKASH, WORKING AS DVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, WORKS BRANCH PALAKKAD

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶17

Contempt Case No.230 OF 2014

¶18

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2014

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Manjula Chellur,C.J.

¶21

We have gone through the averments in the contempt petition as well as taken note of the arrangements made by the railway authorities which is included in the affidavit and also evidenced by photographs produced along with the counter affidavit. According to railway authorities, the wicket gate is still kept open and an employee of railway has been appointed for manning the said gate so as to see that school children who use the said wicket gate do it in a proper way without causing hindrance to each other.

¶22

According to the petitioner, the barricade

¶23

put up near the wicket gate would come in the way of

¶24

¶25

CCC 230/14

¶26

the directions of this court. Therefore, there is contempt committed.

¶27

According to the railway authorities, the

¶28

barricade is only to see that no vehicle passes through the said gate and the said barricade is not at all causing any hindrance so far as movement of students. This submission of railway authorities must be correct as neither parent-teacher-association nor the school authorities have such complaints so far as alleged difficulties faced by the students as indicated in the writ petition. Accordingly, the proceedings are dropped. Contempt case is closed.

¶29

(MANJULA CHELLUR) CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶30

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE) JUDGE.

¶31

uj.

N.v.Sadanandan @ K.Puram Sadanandan v. Anand Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.v.Sadanandan @ K.Puram Sadanandan v. Anand Prakash

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

Sunitha Kumari Vs Pankajakshan

Antony Vs Ajith Kumar and Others

Fr.Sebastian Elanjickal Vs M.R.Unni

Sunil Kumar Vs Baiju Kumar

Razak Vs v.P.Sasi and Others

The Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs M/S.Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board,Thiruvananthapuram