Disposed

K.a.Siyad v. a.Akbar

Kerala HC3 Jul 2015Con.Case(C)/69/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt case filed for alleged disobedience of a 2009 judgment directing the Police to maintain law and order. The Court observed that appropriate action was taken and a fresh allotment was made. With no grounds to proceed, the Contempt Case was closed with liberty to apply later if cause of action arises after pending writ petitions are disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Case closed with liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application after disposal of pending writ petitions.

K.a.Siyad Vs a.Akbar — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2015/12TH ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 69 of 2011 (S)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 160/2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 29-01-2009

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

K.A.SIYAD

¶9

S/O.K.P.ABDUL LATHEEF, PEARL HOUSE, VAZHICHERRY ALAPPUZHA, (PROPRIETOR, A.S.TRADERS WARD NO.10 OF, PUNNAPRA SOUTH PANCHAYATH NEAR FISH LANDING CENTRE, ALAPPUZHA).

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:

¶12

1. A.AKBAR KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶13

2. MR.M.K.RAJESH,(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)S.I.OF POLICE PUNNAPRA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶14

R1 & 2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J

¶17

Cont.Case (C).No. 69 of 2011

¶18

Dated this the 3^rd July, 2015 JUDGMENT

¶19

Ashok Bushan, CJ .

¶20

This Contempt Case has been filed alleging disobedience of the judgment dated 29.1.2009 passed in W.P(C).No.160 of 2009 by which a Division Bench of this Court directed the Police to maintain law and order. The petitioner's case was that the petitioner had filed the Writ Petition seeking Police protection for conducting his small scale industrial unit by name 'A.S.Traders (Chitin Unit)' near Fish Landing Centre, Punnapra. In the contempt application notice was issued and counter affidavit has been filed, to which reply has also been filed.

¶21

In the counter affidavit filed by the State it has been stated that the Police has taken appropriate steps including the Deputy Superintendent of Police talked to

¶22

¶23

Cont.Case (C).69/11

¶24

the persons. The details of the steps taken by the Police in pursuance of the direction given by the Division Bench have been narrated in the counter affidavit. An additional affidavit has also been filed by the State, where it has been stated that the Government by order No.GO(Rt) No.1108/2011/IInd dated 7.9.2011 accorded special sanction to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Alappuzha to resume a part of unassigned 41 cents of land in Sy.No.409 of Aroor Village, Cherthala Taluk, part of Industrial Development Area, Aroor, plot No.30 allotted to M/s.Infra Sales and to allot upto 30 cents of land from the above land to petitioner's unit for shifting the chitin factory as a special case in public interest. It is stated that against the said allotment, W.P(C).No.25703 of 2011 was filed, where this Court stayed the allotment in favour of the applicant.

¶25

From the facts stated in the counter affidavit and the additional affidavit, we are of the view that appropriate action was taken by the authorities and

¶26

Cont.Case (C).69/11 3

¶27

ultimately on account of the law and order problem, fresh allotment was made in favour of the applicant. Since the said allotment is under challenge in W.P(C).No.25703 of 2011 and another Writ Petition, W.P(C).No.26193 of 2011, both the above Writ Petitions are to be heard by the learned Single Judge.

¶28

In view of the facts brought on record in this Contempt Case, we are of the view that as on date there is no ground to proceed with the contempt proceedings. We, thus, are of the view that this Contempt Case be closed with liberty to the applicant to make appropriate application, after final disposal of the aforesaid two Writ Petitions, if any cause of action so arises.

¶29

With the above observation the Contempt Application

¶30

is closed.

¶31

ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE

¶32

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶33

vgs

K.a.Siyad v. a.Akbar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.Siyad v. a.Akbar

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

R.Raj Pradeep Vs Sri.James Varghese

O.Ranjini Vs the Branch Manager

Lijimol.K.D Vs the Mattanchery Mahajanik Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

S.Srrejayan Vs K.J.Mathew, Chief Secretary,Secretariat

S.v.Subimol Vs P.P.Anilkumar

T.G.Rao Vs P.K.Santhoshakumar