In this contempt of court case, the petitioner complained that a previous direction in a connected writ petition was not complied with. The court was satisfied upon receipt of a subsequent order dated 30.11.2017 that the direction was complied with, albeit belatedly, and closed the proceedings.
The contempt of court case is closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 27TH POUSHA, 1939
Con.Case(C).No. 2068 of 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1854/2017 OF THE HON'BLE COURT
PETITIONER:
JACOB MUNDACKAL, AGED 80, S/O ITTY AVARAH MUNDACKAL, DOOR NO.42/27434, VENNALAPARA ROAD, VENNALA P.O., ERNAKULAM-28.
BY ADV.SRI.P.SHANES METHAR
RESPONDENT(S):
ANUJA.A.S (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SECRETARY, COCHIN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KOCHI-682012.
BY SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR,SC
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-01-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PBS
Con.Case(C).No. 2068 of 2017
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.02.2017 IN W.P(C) NO. 1854/2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT FROM RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.EYPI/DO3809/17 DATED 09.06.2017 OF THE RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
PBS
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
Cont. of Court Case (C). No. 2068 OF 2017
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2018
JUDGMENT
This contempt of court case is filed by the petitioner complaining that the direction contained in the judgment in W.P.(C). No. 1854/2017 dated 16.02.2017 is not complied with by the respondent. Today when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the respondent has produced an order dated 30.11.2017 from where I am satisfied that the direction is complied with even though belatedly. Therefore, I do not find any reason to pursue the contempt of court proceedings any further.
Leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the order, if aggrieved, this contempt of court case is closed.
SHAJI P. CHALY
JUDGE
DCS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether contempt proceedings should be dismissed upon satisfactory compliance with the impugned order.
Jacob Mundackal
AnuJA.A.S
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
