Dismissed

Mathew P.A. v. Shri.P.P.Joy

Kerala HC5 Oct 2018Con.Case(C)/258/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case, the Court examined an affidavit filed by the first respondent clarifying the sequence of events regarding compliance with a prior order. The Court found no contumacious act and closed the matter, advising the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies if aggrieved.

What did the court decide?

The contempt matter stands closed; the petitioner is advised to raise a challenge appropriately if aggrieved.

Mathew P.A. Vs Shri.P.P.Joy — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 13TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 258 of 2016 IN WP(C). 24349/2014

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 24349/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22-01-2015

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

MATHEW P.A. AGED 59 YEARS S/O.AUGUSTHY, PARAKKATTU HOUSE, KADAVOOR P.O., KADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 SHRI.P.P.JOY PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE AT NEDUNGAMDAM, IDUKKI-685301.

¶12

2 SHRI.S.SIVAKUMAR PRESENTLY WORKING AS TALUK SURVEYOR, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE AT NEDUNGAMDAM, IDUKKI-685301.

¶13

BY GP SRI.M.R.DHANIL

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This contempt of Court has been filed alleging

¶17

contumacious act on the part of the respondents in giving effect to the verdict passed by this Court on 22.01.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 24399 of 2014.

¶18

Con.Case(C).No. 258 of 2016

¶19

¶20

When the matter came up for consideration on

¶21

03.09.2018, the following order was passed :

¶22

“The direction given by this Court as per judgment dated 22.01.2015 was stated as complied with, as per the submission made by the learned Government Pleader on 02.06.2016, which is sought to be rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

The matter came up for consideration again on 30.09.2016, when there was some insinuation against the petitioner as to the lack of co-operation, however, adding that, the proceedings will be finalized and compliance will be reported immediately, which made this Court to adjourn the matter by three weeks.

¶24

Despite the above order, which was passed about two years back, no compliance report has been filed before this Court, which requires to be dealt with seriously, if there is any omission or lapse on the part of the respondents. The first respondent is directed to file an affidavit as to the sequence of events. “

¶25

Pursuant to the order as aforesaid, an

¶26

affidavit dated 24.09.2018 has been filed also

¶27

producing a copy of the order, as Ext. R1(b). According to the learned counsel, survey plan prepared

¶28

was not acceptable to the petitioner. On going

¶29

Con.Case(C).No. 258 of 2016

¶30

¶31

through the contents of the affidavit, this court of

¶32

the view that the matter does not require to be proceeded further, as no contumacious act is made out.

¶33

If the petitioner is aggrieved of the course and proceedings and in particular against Ext. R1 (b), it is quite open for the petitioner to raise a challenge in an appropriate manner, seeking for proper remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.

¶34

This Contempt matter stands closed accordingly.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

kmd

Mathew P.A. v. Shri.P.P.Joy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathew P.A. v. Shri.P.P.Joy

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

Chungappalli Velayudhan & Another Vs K.K.Abdul Azeez and Others

Elizabeth Mariya Vs Paul Murickan

Joji Joseph @ Wilson Vs Paul Murickan

Mallika Vs the Managing Director, Ksrtc

Alavi Vs Abdul Razack P.and Another

Saju K Vs M/S United India Insurance Company Ltd.