Disposed

M.D.Francis v. K.M.Ummer

Kerala HC16 Jul 2019Con.Case(C)/282/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam closed a contempt case alleging non-compliance with directions in W.P.(C) No.14296/2018 to dispose of stage carriage complaints. The court accepted the petitioner's submission regarding compliance.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case (Case No.282 of 2019) is closed on the submission that the respondent complied with the directions mentioned in WP(C)No.14296 of 2018.

M.D.Francis Vs K.M.Ummer — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

Con.Case(C).No.282 of 2019 IN WP(C). 14296/2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14296/2018 of HIGHCOURT

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 M.D.FRANCIS, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSY, MANACHERY, OLLUR P.O, PADAVARADU , THRISSUR.

¶9

2 P.A.FRANCIS, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. ANTHONY, PURRATHUKARAN HOUSE, MARATHAKKARA P.O, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

K.M.UMMER, (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, PIN-680001.

¶13

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI K.P.HARISH- SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Cont.case(c)282 OF 2019

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner has filed this Contempt Case, alleging noncompliance of the directions contained in Annexure-A1 judgment of this Court dated 01.08.2018 in W.P.(C)No.14296 of 2018, whereby that writ petition was disposed of by directing the 1^st respondent Secretary of Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P4 and P5 complaints made by the petitioners against the stage carriage operation of the 4^th respondent, in case the said complaints are still pending consideration, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment, with notice to the petitioners and also to the 4^th respondent. It was made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the complaints made by the petitioner in Exts.P4 and P5 and it is for the 1^st respondent to take an appropriate decision, strictly in accordance with law.

¶19

On 06.02.2019, when this Contempt Case came up for

¶20

admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

¶21

Cont.case(c)282 OF 2019 3

¶22

On 22.02.2019, when this Contempt Case came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that affidavit of the respondent as to the action taken pursuant to the directions contained in Annexure-A1 judgment of this Court shall be placed on record within a period of two weeks.

¶23

An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent on 18.03.2019.

¶24

Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has already passed an order dated 22.05.2019 in compliance with the directions contained in Annexure-A1 judgment.

¶25

Recording the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Contempt Case is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

¶33

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1/8/2018 IN WPC.14296/2018.

¶34

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 5/11/2018.

¶35

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL

¶36

TRUE COPY

¶37

P.A. TO JUDGE

M.D.Francis v. K.M.Ummer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.D.Francis v. K.M.Ummer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Parameswaran Nair, Vs Thripunithura Municipality

Shaji S. Vs the District Collector

Shalif Mohammed Nahas Vs the Kochi Muncipal Corporation

Auto Gas Energy (India) Limited Vs Cochin Corporation

Shamla Krishnan @ Shamla. Vs District Collector

Muhammad Rafeeque Vs Irinjalakuda Municipality