Disposed

Leena N., v. Sobhana Kumari

Kerala HC22 Feb 2019Con.Case(C)/224/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment concerns a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of a prior order directing pecuniary benefits. The court found that the respondent had issued a compliant order despite delay. The court closed the contempt proceeding, accepted the government pleader's undertaking for future compliance, and left liberty for rehearing. A single-authority record is insufficient to confidently assign

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceeding closed; liberty to rehear granted if undertaking is not complied with within time.

Leena N., Vs Sobhana Kumari — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1940 Con.Case(C).No. 224 of 2019 IN WP(C). 23544/2015

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23544/2015 DATED 01.08.2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

LEENA N., AGED 43 YEARS W/O.VINAYA CHANDRAN, L.P.S.A. H.L. P.S. MALESA MANGALAM RESIDING AT THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

SOBHANA KUMARI, (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER ) ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR 680 582.

¶11

BY ADV. SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP

¶12

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COC 224/19

JUDGMENT

This Contempt of Court case has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the directions

¶17

of this Court in the judgment, dated 01.08.2018, in WP(C)No.23544/2015 have not been complied with.

¶18

Smt. K. Amminikutty, the learned Senior

¶19

Government Pleader, submits today that the respondent has issued an order in compliance with the judgment, albeit, with some amount of delay and seeks the pardon of this Court for the said delay, which she explains was on account of some unavoidable administrative reasons.

¶20

Sri. Brijesh Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, affirms that an order has been issued, bearing No.E/7007/2017KDS dated 21.02.2019 and prays that this matter be listed after a month to verify if the pecuniary benefits under this order have been paid.

¶21

Even when I hear Sri. Brijesh Mohan as

¶22

COC 224/19

¶23

¶24

afore, the fact remains that an order in terms

¶25

of the judgment has now been issued and therefore, I will not be justified in further proceeding with this matter. This is more so because, I also hear the learned Senior Government Pleader stating that all benefits to the petitioner, consequent to the new order,

¶26

will be disbursed not later than two months from today.

¶27

In the afore circumstances, I close this

¶28

COC, recording the afore submissions of Smt. K. Amminikutty, the learned Senior Government Pleader and leaving liberty to the petitioner to seek rehearing of this case, if this undertaking

¶29

is not complied with by the respondent.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

COC 224/19

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO (RT), NO. 1572/2015/G.EDN DATED 25.4.2015. ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.8.2018 IN WPC NO. 23544 OF 2015 OF THIS HONBLE COURT. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 20.9.2018 FORWARDING ANNEXURE.B JUDGMENT TO THE RESPONDENT HEREIN. ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD SHOWING THE ACCEPTANCE OF ANNEXURE.B JUDGMENT.

Leena N., v. Sobhana Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leena N., v. Sobhana Kumari

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

Sadik V.J. Vs the District Collector

Rahana, Vs the Punjab National Bank

Radhamma P., Vs Authorized Officer

Michael Dcruz Vs the Maintenance Tribunal for the Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Bindhu Abraham, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Shajahan Pareli Kunjumoideen Vs the Regional Transport Officer