Dismissed

K.M Venkateswaran v. T.M Sudha

Kerala HC12 Jun 2014Con.Case(C)/460/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil contempt proceeding, the petitioner challenged a letter issued by the respondent for not being in conformity with the original judgment. The court found that since the respondent had issued the letter as directed, the primary cause for contempt was removed, and the proceedings were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case was dismissed on the ground that the respondent had complied with the direction of the court.

K.M Venkateswaran Vs T.M Sudha — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/22ND JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 460 of 2014 (S) IN WP(C).17596/2013

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17596/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 05-10-2013

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

K.M VENKATESWARAN AGED 59 YEARS

¶9

S/O.LATE K.V.NARAYANAN, HOUSE NO.3/880, SINGLE STREET NEW KALPATHI, PALAKKAD.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶11

RESPONDENT :

¶12

T.M SUDHA, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER & MEMBER SECRETARY ART & HERITAGE COMMISSION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN: 695 004.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Con.Case(C).No. 460 of 2014 (S) IN WP(C).17596/2013

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶18

ANNEXURE A1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.10.2013 IN W.P.(C) NO.17596/2013

¶19

ANNEXURE A2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶20

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :

¶21

ANNEXURE R1(a) : A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ART AND HERITAGE COMMISSION HELD ON 12.01.2011

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶26

------------------------------------ Cont.Case(C) No.460 of 2014

¶27

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2014

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner complains of disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment. It is contended that, though Annexure A2 has been passed by the respondent, the same is not in conformity with the observations made in the judgment.

¶30

An affidavit has been filed by the 1^st respondent. It is contended that, the order has been passed in compliance with the directions of this Court after taking into account and considering all the relevant parameters. The minutes of the meeting of the Art and Heritage Commission is produced as Annexure R1(a). The contention therefore is that, the direction of this Court has already been complied with.

¶31

Heard. The operative portion of the judgment Annexure A1 reads as follows :

¶32

“In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 5 to consider the revised plan Exhibit P10, in accordance with law and in the light of observations made in Exhibit P4 and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

¶33

It is not in dispute that Annexure A2 proceedings have

¶34

¶35

Cont.Case(C) No.460 of 2014

¶36

been issued in compliance with the direction of this Court. It is true that the petitioner has a number of contentions regarding the correctness of the decision taken as well as regarding the omission to consider the observations made by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment. Those are all contentions questioning the vires of Annexure A2. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A2, it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. Since the respondent has complied with the direction of this Court, I do not find any grounds to proceed with this contempt case further.

¶37

For the above reasons, this contempt case is dismissed.

¶38

Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.

¶39

K.M Venkateswaran v. T.M Sudha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M Venkateswaran v. T.M Sudha

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

Muhammed Nowful K.S @ Shanu Vs M.G.Balakrishnan

Satheesh Vs Central Govt. Labour Court, Kozhikode

Ashfaq.P. Vs the Nilishwar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Arun K Antony Vs Mahatma Gandhi Univeirsity

K.T. Rajashekhar Vs the Transport Commissioner

C.P. Yakob Vs the Secretary