Disposed

Rohini Facility Management Service v. Suhas

Kerala HC11 Nov 2015Con.Case(C)/1375/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt of court case, the bench closed the matter without deciding the petition, leaving open contentions for the original writ petition on the ground that no one approached the respondent to resume facilities. The judgment addresses non-compliance with an interim order regarding recreation pond activities.

What did the court decide?

Contempt of court case closed, leaving open all contentions to be urged in the writ petition.

Rohini Facility Management Service Vs Suhas — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/20TH KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1375 of 2015 (S) IN WP(C).22261/2015

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22261/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 13-08-2015 PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ROHINI FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICE REVENUE TOWER, B18, NEAR BOAT JETTY ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR A.D.GIREESH S/O.DHARMAN A.R., ALLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERAI PO PIN 683 514.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.RAMNATH SRI.P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL) SEI.M.VARGHESE VARGHESE SMT.UMA R.KAMATH SMT.S.SANDHYA SRI.BEPIN PAUL SRI.SHALU VARGHESE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. SUHAS FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER SECRETARY DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL (DTPC)ERNAKULAM ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM GOVERNMENT OF KERLA, OPPOSITE RAJENDRA MAIDAN PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 011

¶11

2. K.J.TOMY,

¶12

FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER CHILDREN'S COUNCIL FOR CHILD WELFARE ERNAKULAM CHILDREN'S PARK, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM KOCHI, KOCHI - 682 011 AND ALSO HAVING AT ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD PIN 682 030

¶13

CONTD .. 2 ..

¶14

.. 2 ..

¶15

Con.Case(C).No. 1375 of 2015 (S) IN WP(C).22261/2015

¶16

3. SHAJI FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER THE SUPERINTENDENT, CHILDREN'S PARK ERNAKULAM UNDER THE CHILDREN COUNCIL FOR CHILD WELFARE ERNAKULAM CHILDREN'S PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682 011.

¶17

4. M.G.RAJAMANICKAM

¶18

FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN 682030

¶19

R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN R4 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. A. LOWSY R BY SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN

¶20

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Con.Case(C).No. 1375 of 2015 (S) IN WP(C).22261/2015

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶24

ANNEXURE A1	TRUE SEALED COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 13.8.15 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO. 22261/15
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 5.9.15 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DULY SIGNED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN PROOF OF SERVICE OF ANNEXURE A2.
ANNEXURE A4	COPY OF THE LEETTER DTD. 5.9.15 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A5	COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DULY SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN PROOF OF SERVICE OF ANNEXURE A4.
ANNEXURE A6	COPY OF THE LETTR DTD. 5.9.15 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A7	COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DULY SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN PROO OF OF SERVICE OF ANNEXURE A6.
ANNEXURE A8	COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 5.9.15 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A9	COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DULY SIGNED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN PROOF OF SERVICE OF ANNEXURE A8.
ANNEXURE A10	PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE SUBMERGED BOAT AND DAMAGED TICKET COUNTER.

¶25

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶26

ANNEXURE R3(A)	COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19.8.15
ANNEXURE R3(A1)	TRUE TRANSLATION LETTER DTD. 19.8.15
ANNEXURE R3(B)	COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16.9.15
ANNEXURE R3(B1)	TRUE TRANSLATION LETTER DTD. 16.9.15.
ANNEXURE R4(A)	COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29.9.15
ANNEXURE R4(B)	COPY OF THE LETTER NO. CP/17/2015 DTD. 16.9.15

// TRUE COPY //

P.A TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶31

=====================

¶32

Contempt of Court Case No.1375 of 2015 - S ================================ Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2015

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the

¶35

interim order passed by this Court has not been complied with. The interim order is a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 therein, not to obstruct the petitioner and his men and agents, in any manner in duly conducting the recreation pond activities and boating facilities therein.

¶36

The issue relates to such facilities in the Children's

¶37

Park, which is under the District Council for Child Welfare, Ernakulam, whose employee is the 3^rd respondent in the writ petition and the 3^rd respondent in the contempt case. The 3^rd respondent comes on record and contends that none have turned up till the date to conduct the facilities as per the interim order and he has not been issued with notice in the writ petition

¶38

¶39

Contempt of Court Case No.1375 of 2015 - S

¶40

itself. The 3^rd respondent is an employee of the District Council for Child Welfare, for whom the learned Government Pleader cannot appear.

¶41

The facts in brief are that the District Council for Child Welfare had decided to entrust the boating facilities to the District Tourism Promotion Council (D.T.P.C). The District Child Welfare Council and the D.T.P.C are headed by the District Collector, Ernakulam. The D.T.P.C had entered into a contract with the petitioner herein for carrying on the boating facilities, on obstruction of which, the writ petition was filed. There was also a direction issued in the writ petition as indicated above. As of now, the 3^rd respondent is on record with the contention that

¶42

none have approached with the interim order or seeking resumption of facilities.

¶43

It is also submitted that the petitioner is not complying with the instructions issued by the D.T.P.C and it was hence that he was obstructed initially. The petitioner has filed a

¶44

¶45

Contempt of Court Case No.1375 of 2015 - S

¶46

reply affidavit, in which Annexure A.11 has been produced, which indicates that as on 08.07.2015, the petitioner had requested the Secretary, D.T.P.C to issue identity cards to his employees. The learned Counsel for the D.T.P.C produces a letter dated 09.07.2015, which is issued to the Secretary, District Council for Child Welfare, identifying the persons, who are the employees of the petitioner herein. However, the specific contention of the 3^rd respondent, Superintendent of the Children's Park is that none have approached him with the interim order for resumption facilities.

¶47

In such circumstance, the contempt of court case would stand closed, however, leaving open all contentions to be urged in the writ petition.

¶48

Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶49

SB/11/11/2015

¶50

// true copy // P.A to Judge.

Rohini Facility Management Service v. Suhas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohini Facility Management Service v. Suhas

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

The Manager, Christian College, Kattakada Vs Dr.Y.C.Anita

Dr.C.Latha Vs Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University

Dr.Naicy Thomas Vs Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University

Babitha B. and Others Vs Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council

Humayoon S. Vs Deputy Secretary

Bimaljith.D Vs Mahatma Gandhi University