This court closed contempt proceedings as the respondent's order remained incomplete, directing a report on the entitlement date rather than a final decision, while reserving the petitioner's right to seek further directions.
Contempt case closed; court reserved the petitioner's right to seek appropriate directions as per Annexure R(1).
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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/3RD PHALGUNA, 1937
Con.Case(C).No. 143 of 2016 (S)
JUDGMENT DATED 22-07-2015 IN WP(C) 28983/2013.
PETITIONER:
JATAVETHAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PANDAL VYDIKAN, PANDAL MANA, RAPPAL, PUTHUKKAD.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.P.C.GOPINATH SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR SMT.R.S.MANJULA
RESPONDENT:
SMT.RAJALAKSHMI, W/O.GOVINDAKUTTY, AGED 54 YEARS, SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR-680001.
BY ADV. SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL, SC,
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
Con.Case(C).No. 143 of 2016 (S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE 1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.7.2015 IN WPC.28983/2013.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= C.O.(C). No. 143 of 2016
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2016
JUDGMENT
SHAFFIQUE, J.
This contempt case has been filed alleging non compliance of the direction issued by this Court as per judgment dated 22.07.2015 in W.P.(C).No.28983 of 2013. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though an order had been passed by which the petitioner was given paddy instead of fixed value, it is only from 1st Chingam 1191 M.E (2016) and no mention has been made either with reference to transportation cost or with reference to the paddy that the petitioner was entitled for the previous years. A perusal of the judgment dated 22.7.2015 would indicate that the petitioner's claim was with reference to the value fixed for the paddy. Though initially it was fixed at 10/- and enhanced to 15/-, petitioner's complaint was₹ ₹ about the rate at which the amounts have been paid.
to determine the value of paddy. However, the writ petition was disposed of directing the Secretary, CDB to reconsider the matter and take a decision de novo in the light of observations and bearing in
C.O.C. No.143 of 2016 -2-
mind that a realistic approach has to be maintained in such matters. Learned counsel submits that despite such directions, the right to receive paddy has been approved only since 1st Chingam, 1191, whereas the petitioner is entitled for the same from the year 2011, which will come to more than 1000 “paras” of paddy.
Accordingly, reserving the right of the petitioner to seek appropriate directions in terms of Annexure R(1), this contempt case is closed.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
kp/-23.02.16
1 issue framed by the court
Whether contempt proceedings should continue when the impugned order is not yet final and further report is required from the respondent authority.
JATAVETHAN NAMBOOTHIRI
SMT.RAJALAKSHMI
Ashok Bhushan
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
