In a contempt case alleging non-compliance with a judgment, the Court found that the petitioner’s application was rejected by the respondent on a pending policy change. The Court held there was no wilful contempt and closed the case without interference.
The Contest Case is closed due to absenc of a wilful contempt.
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 A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2016/22ND ASHADHA, 1938
Con.Case(C).No. 693 of 2016 (S)
JUDGMENT DATED 26-10-2015 IN WP(C) 33073/2014.
PETITIONER:
MICHAEL M.JOSEPH, S/O.M.JOSEPH, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT MATTAMMEL HOUSE, EROOR PO, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, DIRECTOR LABELLA HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD., MATTAMMEL HOUSE, EROOR PO, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM
BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN
RESPONDENT:
ANILKUMAR,AGED NOT KNOWN, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, SECRETARY, MARADU MUNICIPALITY, MARADU, ERNAKULAM - 682304.
BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
Con.Case(C).No. 693 of 2016 (S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT 26.10.2015 IN WPC.33073/2014.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R(1): TRUE COY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.16 DATED 7.6.2016 OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE MARADU MUNICIPALITY.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C) No.693 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 33073 of 2014
-------------------------------------Dated this the 13th day of July, 2016
JUDGMENT
This contempt case has been filed alleging noncompliance of the direction issued by this Court as per judgment dated 26.10.2015. Objection has been filed producing resolution of the Council wherein it is stated that they have rejected the application, observing that the request shall be considered, if any change in policy is made by the new Government.
Having regard to the fact that the application of the petitioner has already been rejected, I do not think that there is any wilful contempt warranting interference in a contempt jurisdiction. Therefore, the Contempt Case is closed.
Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE
Scl/13.07.2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the refusal to consider the petitioner's representation amounts to wilful contempt warranting judicial intervention.
Michael M.Joseph
AnilKumar
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
