Disposed

Palazhi Mahallu Muslim Jama-Ath v. M.K.Sadique

Kerala HC20 Feb 2018Con.Case(C)/235/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

'Palazhi Mahallu Muslim Jama-ath' filed a contempt petition regarding the Kerala State Wakf Board's delay in deciding a representation. The court accepted the learned counsel's undertaking that the decision would be taken within one month after learning the document was misplaced.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was closed after the respondent's undertaking that the representation would be decided within one month.

Palazhi Mahallu Muslim Jama-Ath Vs M.K.Sadique — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1939 Con.Case(C).No. 235 of 2018 IN WPC. 15212/2017

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15212/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 05-05-2017

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

PALAZHI MAHALLU MUSLIM JAMA-ATH REG. NO. 692/2000, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT PALAZHI, KOZHIKKODE-14, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, ABDU RAHMAN, AGED 39, S/O. MUHAMMED KOYA, KUTTIKKA MANSIL, PALAZHI, KOZHIKODE-14.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

M.K.SADIQUE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGE NOT KNOWN AND OTHER PERSONAL ALSO DETAILS NOT KNOWN, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, EROTH CENTRE, KOZHIKODE- 673 014.

¶11

BY SRI.T.P.SAJID, SC, KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD

¶12

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Con.Case(C).No. 235 of 2018 IN WPC. 15212/2017

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶16

I: A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.15212 OF 2017 DATED 05.05.2017

¶17

II: TRUE COY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 27.05.2017

//TRUE COPY//

P A TO JUDGE

JJJ

ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. &

¶22

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶23

Contempt Case (Civil) No. 235 of 2018 (S)

¶24

Dated: 20^th February, 2018

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Antony Dominic, C.J.

¶27

Complaining delay on the part of the respondent in taking decision on the representation filed by the petitioner in pursuance to the directions contained in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.15212 of 2017, this petition is filed.

¶28

Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the delay has occurred only on account of the fact that the representation filed by the petitioner was misplaced in their office.

¶29

COC No. 235/2018

¶30

-2-

¶31

Now that such an excuse has been given to us, accepting the undertaking given by the learned Counsel for the respondent, that decision on the representation

¶32

would be taken at any rate within one month from today, we close this petition.

¶33

Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶34

Sd/DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶35

jjj 20/02/2018

Palazhi Mahallu Muslim Jama-Ath v. M.K.Sadique

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palazhi Mahallu Muslim Jama-Ath v. M.K.Sadique

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

Parvathy P.B. Vs Dr.K.Muhammed Basheer

V.Gopalan Vs K.Murali

P.R.Madhavi Vs State of Kerala

T.S. Joy Vs Mrs. Sarada Sampath

N.C.Varghese Vs C.F.Robert, Managing Director, the State Farming Corporation Kerala Ltd.

State of Kerala Vs Mala Grama Panchayath