Dismissed

Roshiban N.R. v. Sri.P.S.Raghukumar

Kerala HC8 Apr 2015Con.Case(C)/422/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case, the High Court observed that the petitioner's grievance regarding harassment was a post-judgment matter. The court quashed the contempt proceedings, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate level separately.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to take up the matter of harassment at the appropriate level; the contempt case is closed.

Roshiban N.R. Vs Sri.P.S.Raghukumar — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/18TH CHAITHRA, 1937

¶5

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ROSHIBAN N.R., AGED 39 YEARS S/O.LATE RAVENDRAN N.K., R/O.NJALUPPADY HOUSE A.M.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN SRI.M.A.BABY

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

SRI.P.S.RAGHUKUMAR, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) 5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC CENTRE COCHIN-682031. (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)

¶11

R, BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCIS R BY SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX

¶12

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Con.Case(C).No. 422 of 2015 (S)

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶16

ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/08/2014 IN W.P.(C) NO.20265/14.

¶17

ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE PETITIONER ON 9/9/2014.

¶18

ANNEXURE III: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR.

¶19

ANNEXURE IV: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.12.2014.

¶20

ANNEXURE V: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.12.2014.

¶21

ANNEXURE VI: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.3.2015.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY

PA TO JUDGE

Scl.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶27

C.C.(C) No.422 of 2015

¶28

Dated this the 8^th day of April, 2015.

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner's grievance is that he being harassed by the respondent in connection with the investigation/enquiry pending adjudication proceedings. In fact, petitioner has approached this Court challenging prohibitory order issued by the department and this Court by Annexure I judgment, lifted the detention subject to certain conditions. There is no case in any of the directions has been violated other than complaining about harassment by the investigating officer.

¶31

In that view of the matter, I am of the view this is a matter related to the events post judgment and not forming part of the reliefs sought before this Court. Therefore, the petitioner shall take up the matter at appropriate level and with that liberty, the contempt case is closed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Scl.

Roshiban N.R. v. Sri.P.S.Raghukumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshiban N.R. v. Sri.P.S.Raghukumar

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 Thrikkakara Municipality, Rep. by Its Secretary Vs Mirash Babu

Aniyan.P. John Vs State of Kerala

Shibukumar.S Vs Secretary to Government

Jayaprasad S.D. Vs Government of Kerala

S.Reena Vs the State of Kerala

The Manager Vs State of Kerala