In a contempt petition filed for non-compliance of prior directions, the Court held that no contempt lies as the underlying matter was disposed of by the Panchayat, albeit belatedly.
The contempt case is closed as no contempt lies.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/27TH JYAISHTA, 1937
Con.Case(C).No. 622 of 2015 (S)
JUDGMENT DATED 27-11-2013 IN WP(C).NO. 28610/2011 .
PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER IN WP(C).NO.28610/2011:
RARAN KANDATH ABOOBACKER, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KUNHUMOHAMED HAJEE, TRIKKANAPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 573.
BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN.
RESPONDENTS/1ST RESPONDENT IN WP(C).NO.28610/2011:
1. SRI.SHAIJU VARGHESE, SECRETARY, KUTTIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., 679 571, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. SMT. K.M. KUMARI, PRESIDENT, KUTTIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., 679 571, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME OF THE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER).
BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
Con.Case(C).No. 622 of 2015 (S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
| ANNEXURE A1 | COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/02/2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
|---|---|
| ANNEXURE A2 | COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 21/10/2011 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| ANNEXURE A3 | COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/09/2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| ANNEXURE A4 | COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07/03/2015 GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| ANNEXURE A5 | COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/04/2015 OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR THE LOCAL SELF GOVT. INSTITUTIONS. |
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
C.O.C. No.622 of 2015
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2015.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner had filed the contempt case, on the ground that the directions in the judgment to pass orders on the appeal, was not complied with. However, now the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat contends that the same has been disposed of, but beyond the time as stipulated in the judgment.
In such circumstances, no contempt would lie and the contempt case is closed.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
sp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a contempt case for non-compliance of directions is maintainable where the matter was disposed of beyond the stipulated time.
Raran Kandath Aboobacker
Shaiju Varghese
K.M. Kumari
K. Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
