Dismissed

Adv. K.P. Ramachandran v. Dr. a. Pratibha

Kerala HC21 Jun 2018Con.Case(C)/483/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt case challenging non-compliance with an interim order dated 6.2.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.3293/2018. The Court held that the interim order merely gave liberty to statutory authorities to process applications without specific mandatory directions. Consequently, the Court found no ground for contempt and closed the case.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed. No further orders.

Adv. K.P. Ramachandran Vs Dr. a. Pratibha — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1940

¶4

Con.Case(C).No. 483 of 2018 IN WPC. 3293/2018

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 3293/2018 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

ADV. K.P. RAMACHANDRAN S/O.LATE K.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAMBOOTHIRI,SREEHARI, 33/670,CMRRA-64,GANGA NAGAR,MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY POST,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 024.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WP(C):

¶10

1. DR. A. PRATIBHA (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), REGIONAL OFFICER,CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION, KERALA STATE REGIONAL OFFICE,1ST FLOOR, CHITRANJALI STUDIO COMPLEX,TIRUVALLUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 027.

¶11

2. SRI.PRASOON JOSHI, CHAIR PERSON (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION, HEAD OFFICE,FILMS DIVISION COMPLEX,PHASE-I BUILDING, 9TH FLOOR,DR.G.DESHMUKH MARG,MUMBAI-400 026.

¶12

R1&R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Con.Case(C).No. 483 of 2018 IN WPC. 3293/2018

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶17

ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C)NO.3293/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 6.2.2018 ANNEXURE A2: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 6.2.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A3: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MALAYALA MANORAM DAILY DATED 8.2.2018

¶18

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk/22/6/18

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

C.O.(C)No.483 of 2018

¶24

¶25

W.P(C)No.3293 of 2018

¶26

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2018

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This contempt case is filed by the petitioner

¶29

complaining that the directives contained in the interim

¶30

order passed by this Court dated 6.2.2018 is not complied

¶31

with. In my considered view, no contempt is maintainable

¶32

against an order passed on 6.2.2018, which read thus:-

¶33

“Adv. Sri.Issac Thomas taken notice for R6 also. Service is complete. ASGI as well as respective counsel appearing for the respondents seek time for filing counter. Respondents 5 to 7 have already filed a counter. Post after three weeks.

¶34

In the meanwhile, pendency of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the respective statutory authority under the Cinematograph Act, and Rules thereunder to process the application submitted by respondents 5 to 76 in accordance with law and take appropriate action.”

¶35

C.O.(C)No.483 of 2018 in

¶36

¶37

¶38

Therefore, it is clearly evident from the said order

¶39

that this Court has only given liberty to the respondents to

¶40

take a decision irrespective of the pendency of the writ petition before this Court. Therefore, it is clear that, there was no direction by this Court to pass an order in any particular manner. Therefore, contempt case cannot lie at this stage of this proceedings.

¶41

Contempt case is closed accordingly.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶44

dlk/21/6/18

Adv. K.P. Ramachandran v. Dr. a. Pratibha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adv. K.P. Ramachandran v. Dr. a. Pratibha

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

Mathew Philip Vs M.P.Jose

Eldhose K.G Vs Sri.Ajithkumar I.as

Saraswathy Amma P Vs Sri Biju Prabhakar,District Collector

E.B.Mano Vs the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Dr.Raju Mathew Vs Kitco Ltd.

Joseph M.M Vs Manjakar