Dismissed

T.K.Thambi v. a.Ranjan I.F.S.

Kerala HC5 Jul 2018Con.Case(C)/1014/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a contempt petition filed for non-compliance of writ directives. The single judge held that since the statutory authority passed the order within the extended timeframe, the case is closed, with liberty to challenge the order through appropriate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The contempt of court case is closed; liberty retained to file suitable proceedings against the impugned order.

T.K.Thambi Vs a.Ranjan I.F.S. — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1014 of 2018

¶6

----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8296/2018 DATED 05-04-2018 --------------

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶8

T.K.THAMBI, S/O.KURIAKOSE, AGED 54 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, ALBY SAW MILLS, PERUVAMMUZHY,KADAMATTOM P.O., PIN-682311, KOLENCHERY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.WILSON URMESE

¶10

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶11

A.RANJAN I.F.S., AGED 56 YEARS,(FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) FUNCTIONING AS THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER/AUTHORISED OFFICER, DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, MALAYATTOOR, KODANAD, PIN-683544, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.M.MANOJ BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER BY SRI.SANDESH RAJA.K.(FOREST)

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.V.

¶15

Con.Case(C).No. 1014 of 2018

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEXURE A: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.4.2018 IN WPC NO.8296/2018 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 9.4.2018.

¶19

ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CONFISCATION DATED 8.5.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN.

¶20

ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN.

¶21

ANNEXURE E: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 5.5.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶22

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

¶23

/TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 07.07.2018

¶24

SHAJI P.CHALY, J.

¶25

========================

¶26

Cont.Case No.1014 of 2018

¶27

======================== Dated this the 5^th day of July 2018

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This contempt case is filed by the petitioner complaining that the directives contained in the judgment dated 5.4.2018 are not complied with. However, I find that as per order dated 17.5.2018, directions of this Court are complied with. Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously submitted that even the respondents have not referred the writ petition number in the order, and therefore, it cannot be presumed that it was taking into account the directions, the order is passed now by the statutory authorities as directed in the writ petition.

¶30

However, I am of the considered opinion that

¶31

when an order is passed within the time frame or within an extended period, by the statutory authority, this Court will be loath in interfering with such matters in a contempt of

¶32

Cont.Case No.1014 of 2018

¶33

¶34

court proceedings. If petitioner is of the opinion that the order passed is illegal, necessarily, petitioner will have to challenge the same in an appropriately constituted proceedings. I do not find any reason to entertain the contempt of court case any further, in view of the compliance of the directions by the statutory authority. Therefore, the contempt of court case is closed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to file suitable proceedings against the impugned order.

¶35

sd/

¶36

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶37

jm/ \True copy \

¶38

PA to Judge

T.K.Thambi v. a.Ranjan I.F.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Thambi v. a.Ranjan I.F.S.

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

P.E.Sreedevi Vs the State of Kerala

Raveendran Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Wilson Vs Pudukkad Grama Panchayath

Aneefa Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O)

Fr. Joseph Samuel Karukayil Vs Rajeev Sadanandan IAS

M/S. Capital Cashew Vs M/S. Ibrahim Commodities