Disposed

K.P.Joseph v. P.H.Kurien

Kerala HC11 Jul 2018Con.Case(C)/1321/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt proceeding, the petitioner alleged non-compliance with a judgment dated 14.06.2017. The respondents submitted they had taken action and would complete registration within a month. The court closed the contempt case and directed full compliance within two months.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; respondents directed to ensure full compliance of the judgment within two months.

K.P.Joseph Vs P.H.Kurien — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1321 of 2018

PETITIONER:

K.P. JOSEPH,

S/O.PHILIPOSE, AGED 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, VALAVOOR KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.P.C.HARIDAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. P.H. KURIEN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

2. A.T. JAMES, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

3. V.S. NAMBOOTHIRI, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

4. V.M. ASHRAF, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), GENERAL, PALA.

¶16

5. M.G.RAJAMANIKKAM, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE IT INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., TECHNO PARK CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 581. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.M. RESHIMI R5 BY SRI. K.A.ABDUL SALAM, SC THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

mbr/

¶18

Con.Case(C).No. 1321 of 2018 ----------------------------

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE A1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.3164/14/RD DATED 11.7.2014.
ANNEXURE A2 :	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.2901/15 DATED 6.6.2015.
ANNEXURE A3 :	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF DLPC DATED 7.8.2015.
ANNEXURE A4 :	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 25.11.2015.
ANNEXURE A5 :	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.6.2017 IN WPC.NO.19878/2015.
ANNEXURE A6 :	TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 20.12.2017.
ANNEXURE A7 :	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.12.2017 OF THE SPL. TAHSILDAR (LA) PALA.
ANNEXURE A8 :	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 8.1.2018 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.
ANNEXURE A9 :	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.2.2018 IN CMP.NO.1082/2018 IN WPC.NO.19878/2015.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

mbr/ 13.07.2018.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

¶27

Con.Case (C)No.1321 of 2018 S

¶28

Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2018

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This contempt case has been filed alleging that the directions in the judgment dated 14.06.2017 in W.P.(C) No.19878/2015 have not been complied with by the respondents even now. The petitioner says that even though the respondents were directed to complete the exercise within a period of four months, which was subsequently extended by this Court, no action has been taken.

¶31

When this matter was taken up today, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri.Abdul Salam, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, submit that all possible action has already been taken to comply with the directions in the judgment and it is on account of unavoidable

¶32

COC 1321/18

¶33

¶34

circumstances, primarily administrative in nature, that the directions could not be complied with in its full until now. They say that all action to register the documents, as directed in the judgment, will be completed within a period of one month from today without fail and they pray that this case be listed after a month

¶35

Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel as afore, I am of the view that there will not be any further purpose in keeping this contempt case pending, especially when the respondents say that they are complying with the directions. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to close this contempt case directing the respondents to ensure that the compliance of the judgment is fully done within a period of two months from today. I direct them to treat these directions as being peremptory and I leave liberty to the petitioner to seek re-hearing of this contempt case if the respondents do not comply with these directions either.

¶36

COC 1321/18

¶37

¶38

This contempt case is thus closed reserving the afore liberty to the petitioner.

¶39

Sd/Devan Ramachandran, Judge

¶40

tkv

K.P.Joseph v. P.H.Kurien

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Joseph v. P.H.Kurien

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

E.E.Sebastian Vs Smt.K.Sumathi

Vijaya Cleetus Vs the Punnpra North Village Panchayath

Nisha Berthold Vs the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations

Kerala State Film Development & Corporation Ltd. Vs Kerala State Public Service Commission

Rajan K. Vs the Chairman (Lic)

Karuparambil Muhammed Vs the Divisional Forest Officer