Allowed

Jabeena Hamid Yafi v. Arun Rangan

Kerala HC28 Jul 2015Con.Case(C)/981/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a contempt petition against the Secretary of Alappuzha Municipality for non-compliance with a previous order directing an inspection. The Court found substantial compliance was met and closed the contempt case, directing the respondent to provide the inspection report.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; respondent directed to provide copy of inspection report and final decision.

Jabeena Hamid Yafi Vs Arun Rangan — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2015/6TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 981 of 2015 (S)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.9276 OF 2015, DATED 08-06-2015

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS :

¶8

1. JABEENA HAMID YAFI, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.HAMID YAFI, FATHIMANIKETH, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA- 12.

¶9

2. HAMID YAFI, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER YAFI, FATHIMA NIKETH, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA- 12.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA

¶11

CONTEMPTNOR(S)/RESPONDENT :

¶12

ARUN RANGAN, AGED 45 YEARS, FATHERE'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN- 688 001.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.AZAD BABU, S.C, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

Con.Case(C).No. 981 of 2015 (S)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶19

ANNEXURE A: THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.9276 OF 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 08.06.2015.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶26

Cont. Case (C) No. 981 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No. 9276 of 2015

¶27

Dated this the 28^th day of July, 2015

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The Secretary of the respondent municipality is personally present.

¶30

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent municipality submits that as directed by this Court in the judgment, the Secretary has inspected the spot; and there is no violation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules.

¶31

As there is substantial compliance, the contempt case is closed.

¶32

The respondent shall make available a copy of the report regarding the inspection and the final decision taken by the Secretary so that it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the same before the competent forum without any delay.

¶33

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶34

bka/-

Jabeena Hamid Yafi v. Arun Rangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jabeena Hamid Yafi v. Arun Rangan

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

Sabu Mamman Vs the Secretary

Auto Riskchaw Thozhilali Union (B.M.S) Vs District Collector, Alappuzha

T.R.Vijayakumar Vs Aymanam Grama Panchayath (Special Grade)

Laila Vs P.Vijayan

Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Vs the Sub Regional Transport Officer

Mini Jayaram Vs the President, Vadavukode-Puthencruz Grama Panchayath