Dismissed

Mary John v. Vinod Kumar

Kerala HC6 Dec 2019Con.Case(C)/1241/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a July 2018 directive. The court found the directions were complied with via an order appealed and allowed by the Panchayat Committee. The contempt petition was closed, with liberty to challenge the Committee's order via appropriate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed with liberty to challenge the Panchayat committee order via appropriate proceedings.

Mary John Vs Vinod Kumar — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

Con.Case(C).No.1241 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 26877/2017

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26877/2017(H) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

MARY JOHN AGED 66 YEARS W/O. JOHN, VADAKKEDATHU HOUSE, CHURULI KARA, KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

VINOD KUMAR (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),SECRETARY, KANJIKKUZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IDUKKI DISTRICT,PIN-685603

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Con.Case(C).No.1241 of 2019 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This contempt case is filed by the petitioner

¶17

complaining that the directives contained in the judgment dated 20.7.2018 is not complied.

¶18

However, from the statement filed by the

¶19

respondent and the documents produced along with the same, I find, in compliance with the direction, an

¶20

order was passed by the Secretary of the Grama

¶21

Panchayat, which was taken in appeal by the aggrieved person before the Panchayat Committee, which was allowed by the Panchayat Committee. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, since the directions of this court was complied with, nothing survives to be considered in this contempt petition.

¶22

Even though learned counsel for petitioner

¶23

pointed out many illegalities in the order passed by the Committee of the Panchayat, that is not a subject

¶24

matter to be considered by this court in this

¶25

contempt petition, especially when petitioner has got

¶26

an efficacious remedy to prefer appropriate

¶27

Con.Case(C).No.1241 of 2019 3

¶28

proceedings either before the Tribunal or appropriate authority.

¶29

In that view of the matter, I do not think anything survives to be considered in this contempt petition, accordingly it is closed leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Panchayat committee in accordance with law.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

Smv 10.12.2019

JUDGE

Con.Case(C).No.1241 of 2019

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:

¶38

ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2018 IN WPC NO.26877/17 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶39

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

¶40

ANNEXURE R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06/10/2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE R1 B TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 16/10/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION. ANNEXURE R1 C TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING HELD ON 25/10/2018. ANNEXURE R1 D TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 29/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE R1 E TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/12/2018 IN WPC NO.40080/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE R1 F TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION. ANNEXURE R1 G TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14/03/2019 OF THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE R1 H TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.2(1) OF THE COMMITTEE OF IDUKKI KANJIKUZHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 19/06/2019.

Mary John v. Vinod Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mary John v. Vinod Kumar

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

Soumya.M.K Vs Assistant Educational Officer

Jomi Jose Vs the Kannur University

Thushara K., Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences (Kuhs)

Napier Theodore Vs Director of Public Instruction

Jesy Joseph Vs State of Kerala

M.J.Francis Vs State of Kerala