Disposed

Akhilesh v. S v Hemachandran

Kerala HC11 Jan 2018Con.Case(C)/1827/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt proceeding arose from a complaint that the respondent failed to comply with a preceding order directing the reporting of vacancies. The court found the requirement substantially complied with despite a clerical error in the Gazette and directed the filing of an addendum to correct the endorsement.

What did the court decide?

Addendum to be filed by the respondent before the PSC within two days.

Akhilesh v S Vs Hemachandran — 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 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 221ST POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1827 of 2017

¶6

JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16392/2017 DATED 10-10-2017.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 AKHILESH V S, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.VAMADEVAN NAIR K, KOMALLOOR VEEDU, VATTARATHALA, PANAVOOR PO, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695568

¶9

2 SANTHOSH KUMAR V, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHA PANICKER, SAYOOJA, NEAR L.P SCHOOL, KUDAYAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695505.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1:

¶12

HEMACHANDRAN, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶13

BY ADV. SHRI T.P SAJAN, SC

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

Con.Case(C).No. 1827 of 2017

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

¶19

ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2017 IN WPC.NO.16392/2017. ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 16.10.2017.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE R1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS 10.12/GL2/97/RTC DATED 21.10.2017. /TRUE COPY/

¶22

P.S.TO JUDGE

¶23

mbr/

¶24

SHAJI.P.CHALY, J.

¶25

============== Cont.Case (C) No. 1827 of 2017 ==================

¶26

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2018

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The contempt case is filed by the petitioner complaining that the directives contained in the judgment to report 97 vacancies to the Kerala PSC at the earliest, and at any rate on or before 21.10.2017 is not complied with. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, while the vacancy was reported in column 8, it is denoted that the vacancy has occurred consequent to the judgment of the High Court. It can obviously be a mistake in the improper use of the phraseology while preparing the application in accordance with the format. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the directives contained in the judgment is substantially complied with the respondent. However, an addenda shall be filed by the respondent before the PSC correcting the endorsements made in column 8 within two weeks from today.

¶29

The contempt of case is closed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to re-direct the proceedings if situation warrants.

¶30

Sd/-SHAJI.P.CHALY, Judge

¶31

lsn

Akhilesh v. S v Hemachandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh v. S v Hemachandran

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

Harikumar Vs Sri. Salim

M.V.S. Nampoothiry Vs the Bar Council of Kerala

G.Maneesh Vs State of Kerala

All Kerala Manpower Supply Contractors Welfare Association Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

S.Ravindran Vs Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

Reeja Thomas Vs the State of Kerala