Disposed

Pathumma v. Safeeya

Kerala HC29 Nov 2016Con.Case(C)/1825/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt of court case filed by petitioners regarding the judgment in W.P(C).No. 26075/2014, the court noted that the Local Level Monitoring Committee had conducted an inspection and taken a decision. Accordingly, the case was closed with liberty granted for petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies under law.

What did the court decide?

Case closed with liberty to petitioners to pursue appropriate remedy available under law.

Pathumma Vs Safeeya — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1825 of 2016 (S)

¶6

--------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 26075/2014, DATED 11-11-2014

¶7

NAME & ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 7 T0 9 IN THE WP(C) :

¶8

1. PATHUMMA,

¶9

AGED 70 YEARS, W/O. LATE ALI, KALAKKUZHY, MULAVOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686 673.

¶10

2. KUNJUMON, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED, KALAKKUZHY, MULAVOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686 673.

¶11

3. PATHUMA (FATHIMA), AGED 58 YEARS, D/O. LATE MUHAMMED, KALAKKUZHY, MULAVOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686 673.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH

¶13

SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN SRI.J.RAMKUMAR SMT.AMRIN FATHIMA

¶14

NAME & ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND 6TH RESPONDENT IN THE WP(C) :

¶15

1. SAFEEYA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL M.I., MEYKKAPADIKKAL HOUSE, MULAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686 673.

¶16

2. RAJU P.N., FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS HEREIN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PAYIPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686 673, THE CONVENOR OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE

¶17

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE SMT.A.A.GEETHA R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S.GOPINATHAN

¶18

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd.

¶20

Con.Case(C).No. 1825 of 2016 (S)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶23

ANNEXURE A: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.11.2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C).NO. 26075/2014. ANNEXURE B: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.12.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE C: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.01.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE D: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.01.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE E: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.02.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE F: A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 25.04.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND ITS REPLY DATED 16.06.2016 FURNISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE G: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.09.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE H: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.09.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶30

Cont. Case (C) No. 1825 of 2016

¶31

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

In view of the fact that the Local Level Monitoring

¶34

Committee has conducted an inspection and taken a decision, the contempt case is closed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue the appropriate remedy available

¶35

under law.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶38

bka/-

Pathumma v. Safeeya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathumma v. Safeeya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manu Krishnan K.M Vs Shri.Y.S.K.Seshu Kumar

Arjun Sanker Vs R.Venkitesh

State of Kerala Vs M.G.Ramachandran Nair

Rev. Fr. Hypolitus Vs Prashant Nair

P.K. Mohanan Vs R. Girija

A.v.Vijayan Vs the Kannur District Co-Operative Bank