Disposed

K.Ramakumar v. Additional Advocate General

Kerala HC25 Jan 2016WP(C)/1837/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP(C).No. 1837 of 2016, the petitioner sought sanction for contempt proceedings against newspaper editors. The court accepted the Government Pleader's submission to consider the matter itself. The petition was disposed of directing the 4th respondent to take a decision on the sanction application.

What did the court decide?

The 4th respondent is directed to take appropriate decision on the application for sanction for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

K.Ramakumar Vs Additional Advocate General — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/5TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 1837 of 2016 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-----------------------

¶8

K.RAMAKUMAR, ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT “SUMTHRUPTHI”, KALATHIPARAMBIL CROSS ROAD, VALANJAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 016.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS SMT.ASHA BABU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

-------------------------

¶12

1. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL,

¶13

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶14

2. MAMMEN MATHEW,

¶15

CHIEF EDITOR (RESPONSIBLE FOR SELECTION OF NEWS

¶16

UNDER THE PRB ACT), MALAYALA MANORAMA,

¶17

P.B. NO. 4278, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 036.

¶18

3. ROSAMMA CHACKO,

¶19

LEGAL REPORTER, MALAYALA MANORAMA, P.B. NO. 4278,

¶20

PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 036.

¶21

4. ADVOCATE GENERAL,

¶22

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶23

R1 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TOM K. THOMAS

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶25

25-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

msv/

¶27

WP(C).No. 1837 of 2016 (D)

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶30

P1-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06/08/2015 ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3

¶31

P2-TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION PETITION DATED 02/09/2013.

¶32

P3-TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Ms v/

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶39

W.P.(C) No.1837 of 2016

¶40

Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2016

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

The petitioner approached the Advocate General, the 4^th respondent herein, seeking a sanction to proceed against respondents 1 and 2 for Contempt under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶43

The petitioner approached this Court challenging action of the 4^th respondent relegating the consideration of the application to the first respondent.

¶44

The learned Government Pleader submits that if the petitioner has no objection in considering the matter by the 4^th respondent himself, the 4^th respondent himself will take a decision on the request of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that they have no objection in the matter being considered by the 4^th respondent. In that view of the matter, the 4^th respondent is directed to take appropriate decision on Ext.P2 in accordance with law.

¶45

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶46

SD/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶47

K.Ramakumar v. Additional Advocate General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ramakumar v. Additional Advocate General

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

Nibu K.Daniel Vs State of Kerala

Saramma Varghese Vs Secy to Govt.

Dara Shafee @ H.Shafeeq Rahman Vs the Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms)

K.K.Sreenivasan Vs the Commissioner

Sivaraman Vs Geologist

Elena Vorobeva Vs Foreigners Regional Registration Office (Frro)