Dismissed

Aminu Abdulkhader v. Mr.Patil Ajit Bhagwatrao IAS

Kerala HC2 Mar 2018Con.Case(C)/540/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court closed a contempt petition alleging disobedience of earlier directions. The Court held that respondents 1 and 2 were not in office when the writ petition was filed and impleaded them irresponsibly. Petitioners were directed to pay costs to respondents 1 and 2. The third respondent had predeceased the filing of the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay cost of Rs. 2,500 each to respondents 1 and 2; contempt petition closed.

Aminu Abdulkhader Vs Mr.Patil Ajit Bhagwatrao IAS — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶6

Con.Case(C).No. 540 of 2015 IN WPC. 21118/2013 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21118/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 20-11-2014

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN WPC

¶8

AMINU ABDULKHADER, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE ABDUL KHADER, C.C.V/508, ELANJIMUKKU, MATTANCHERY.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.A.X.VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:

¶11

MR.PATIL AJIT BHAGWATRAO IAS

¶12

(FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER), SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, PIN-682011.

¶13

MR.SIVAN KUTTY K.

¶14

(FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER), THE

¶15

ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ZONAL OFFICE, FORTKOCHI, 682011.

¶16

FATHIMA MUHAMMED KOYA

¶17

V/499, ELANJIMUKKU, MATTANCHERY-682002.

¶18

R3 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE PREM R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.FAZIL

¶19

R BY SRI.N.RAVINDREN ACHARY,SC,COCHIN CORPN.

¶20

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. &

¶22

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶23

Cont. Case (C) No.540 of 2015

¶24

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2018

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Antony Dominic, C.J.

¶27

This contempt petition is filed alleging disobedience of the directions of this Court contained in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.21118 of 2013. The judgment was rendered on 20.11.2014 whereby this Court had directed respondents 1 and 2 to conduct inspection of the properties of the petitioner as well as the third respondent with notice to them and issue directions to the third respondent to undertake and complete the works of rectification.

¶28

The matter was heard finding prima facie disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment and by order dated 07.02.2018, the learned single Judge of this Court referred the case to this Court for further proceedings.

¶29

Accordingly, the matter was heard by this Court on

¶30

Cont. Case (C) No.540 of 2015 -2-

¶31

21.02.2018 and this Court passed order directing personal appearance of respondents 1 and 2. In compliance with the directions contained in the judgment, respondents 1 and 2 have appeared before this Court and we have heard the learned counsel on their behalf as well.

¶32

On such hearing, we find that insofar as the first respondent is concerned, he was relieved from the post of Secretary of Corporation of Kochi on 27.06.2013, whereas the very writ petition was filed only on 23.08.2013.

¶33

Insofar as the second respondent is concerned also, it is pointed out that he was relieved from the post of Assistant Engineer of the Corporation as early as on 18.05.2011.

¶34

Evidently therefore, the petitioner had no reason whatsoever to implead respondents 1 and 2 in their personal capacity and drag them to this Court on the allegation that these two persons have violated the directions of this Court. This conduct of the petitioner, to say the least, is highly

¶35

Cont. Case (C) No.540 of 2015

¶36

-3-

¶37

irresponsible and deplorable and respondents 1 and 2 are

¶38

liable to be compensated.

¶39

Insofar as the third respondent is concerned, we

¶40

find that the third respondent left this world in October, 2017.

¶41

In the aforesaid circumstances, this contempt petition

¶42

is closed. Petitioner is directed to pay cost of `2,500/- each

¶43

to respondents 1 and 2.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

ANTONY DOMINIC CHIEF JUSTICE

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

kns/-

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

Cont. Case (C) No.540 of 2015 -4-

Aminu Abdulkhader v. Mr.Patil Ajit Bhagwatrao IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aminu Abdulkhader v. Mr.Patil Ajit Bhagwatrao IAS

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

Kanakamma Vs Shynamole

P.L.Johnson Vs the Government of Kerala

The University of Calicut Vs Allen N.J

E.K. Mathew Vs Maheswari P.

Naduvil Vellad Devaswom Vs Sri. Mir Muhammed Ali, I.A.S

Sundhari Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer