Disposed

K.P. Prathapan v. Shinamol

Kerala HC12 Apr 2018Con.Case(C)/110/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case, the petitioner complained that the respondent failed to comply with an earlier judgment ordering the return of illegally recovered sums. The respondent offered an apology and sought an extension. The Court deferred action and granted time till 15.05.2018 to comply, reserving liberty for further proceedings if directions are not met.

What did the court decide?

Time granted to respondent till 15.05.2018 to comply with earlier judgment; case closed with liberty to re-case.

K.P. Prathapan Vs Shinamol — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 110 of 2018 IN WPC. 19797/2015

¶6

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.19797/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA)

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER

¶8

K.P. PRATHAPAN

¶9

AGED 56 YEARS, SON OF K.V.PARAMESWARAN, RETIRED HEAD OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.SUB DIVISION, P.O.MARUTHORVATTOM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, (RESIDING AT PARAMESWARA, CMC 12, P.O.CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 524)

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶12

SHINAMOL, I.A.S

¶13

FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶14

R BY P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

nkr

¶17

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶18

- - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 110 of 2018

¶19

- - - - Dated this the 12^th day of April, 2018

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner complains that the judgment of this Court, dated 01.06.2017, in W.P.(C) No.19797 of 2015 has not been complied with by the respondent.

¶22

In the judgment in question, I had directed the respondent herein to return certain sums that is recovered from the petitioner illegally within a period of two months. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though a certified copy of the judgment was made available to the respondent some time in the month of June, 2017, no

¶23

action has yet been taken to obey the directions of this Court.

¶24

At the time when this case was taken up, the learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority, upon instructions from the respondent, submits that the delay in complying with the directions of this Court was on account of certain unavoidable incidents in the administrative set up of the Water Authority and that the respondent offers her unconditional apology for the same. He prays that she may be given two

¶25

Contempt Case (Civil) No. 110 of 2018

¶26

-:2:-

¶27

months more time to comply with the judgment and that she assures this Court that necessary action will be taken and completed within that time.

¶28

In view of the persuasive submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority and even though I am of the view that the respondent has exhibited clear contumacious contempt in this case, I deem it appropriate to defer action in this Contempt of Court Case for the time being and to grant time till 15.05.2018 to the respondent to comply with the directions in the judgment, dated 01.06.2017, in W.P. (C) No.19797 of 2015. I caution the respondent that if necessary action is not taken and concluded within that time, this Court will view it seriously.

¶29

This Contempt Case is thus closed, but reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek a re-hearing of the case, if no action is taken and completed, by the respondent as directed in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.19797/2015 before 15.05.2018.

¶30

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶31

ttb/12.04

K.P. Prathapan v. Shinamol

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P. Prathapan v. Shinamol

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

Ashok Kumar P.S. Vs Babu Sebastian, Vice Chancellor, M.G.University

V.Sreelatha Vs Smt.K.Valsala

Secretary, State Co-Operative Employees Pension Board Vs Geetha R.B.

Anilkumar. D Vs Augustin V.A

Mr. M.J. Francis Vs Mohammed Y. Safirulla

T.a.Joseph Vs M.S.Jaya IAS