In this contempt case, the petitioner alleged non-compliance of prior directions. It was found that the Scrutiny Committee was not functioning. The court held that wilful contempt cannot be stated in these circumstances and dropped the case.
The contempt case is dropped.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2014/ 31ST SRAVANA, 1936
Con.Case(C).No. 506 of 2014 (S)
JUDGMENT DATED 26-08-2013 IN WP(C) 10823/2012
PETITIONER:
JAISY PHILIP,D/O. PHILIP, AGED 27, EZHUKILANICKAL HOUSE, MELUKAVU POST KOTTAYAM DT. ,PINCODE - 686 652.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.C.ELDHO SRI.JIJO THOMAS SRI.SURAJ.S
RESPONDENT:
SUMANA N. MENON, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS SECRETARY THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE SC/ST, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUNITHA VINOD
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
Con.Case(C).No. 506 of 2014 (S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.08.2013 IN WP(C).10823 OF 2012 THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
ANNEXURE A2: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.09.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
msv/
**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** Cont.Case No.506 of 2014
Dated this the 22nd day of August 2014
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner has approached this Court alleging noncompliance of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 26/08/2013 in W.P.(C).No.10823/2012.
Cont.Case No.506/2014
2
proper application before the Scrutiny Committee, it cannot be stated that the respondent has committed any wilful contempt.
Hence this contempt case is dropped.
(sd/-)
(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)
jsr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether wilful contempt can be established where the petitioner failed to file an application before a non-functioning Scrutiny Committee.
Whether the non-compliance with the direction to submit an application under Section 8 constitutes contempt in the absence of proper proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jaisy Philip
Sumana N. Menon
A.M. Shaifque
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
