Disposed

Paulose a. Arickal v. C.K.Baiju

Kerala HC7 Sept 2020Con.Case(C)/1179/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case alleging non-compliance with earlier directions, the respondent public officer undertook compliance within 2-3 weeks citing the pandemic. The court recorded the undertaking and disposed of the matter, retaining liberty for the petitioner to reopen proceedings if compliance fails.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case stood disposed of after recording the respondent's undertaking of compliance.

Paulose a. Arickal Vs C.K.Baiju — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Con.Case(C).No.1179 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 12252/2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12252/2020(F) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

PAULOSE A. ARICKAL AGED 59 YEARS S/O. ANTONY, ARICKAL HOUSE, MURINGOOR P.O, MURINGOOR THEKKUMURY VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 309

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.P.BIJU

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

C.K.BAIJU AGED 47 YEARS S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DIRECTOR, DIRECTORS OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTAM P.O, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM 695 004

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶16

==================

¶17

Contempt Case (Civil).No. 1179/2020 in W.P.(C).No. 12252/2020

¶18

==================

¶19

Dated this the 7^th day of September, 2020

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The above contempt of court case has been filed alleging non compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Anx. 1 judgment dated 23.6.2026 in W.P.(C).No. 12252/2020 filed by the petitioner herein. Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondent officer submits that the delay in completing the action for compliance of the directions in the abovesaid judgment occurred mainly on account of the Covid-19 pandemic issues and that notice of hearing has already been issued by the respondent officer to the petitioner herein and that hearing is scheduled to be conducted today (7.9.2020) and that orders will be in the matter in strict compliance with the directions in Anx. 1 judgment within 2-3 weeks. The abovesaid undertaking made on behalf of the respondent officer is recorded. In view of the abovesaid submission made on behalf of the respondent officer, there is no necessity to keep this contempt petition pending. In case the respondent officer does not comply with the abovesaid directions, the petitioner will be at

¶22

Contempt Case (Civil) 1179/20 - : 3 :-

¶23

liberty to file an appropriate application to reopen the present contempt proceedings.

¶24

With the abovesaid liberty and recording the abovesaid submission made on behalf of the respondent officer, the above contempt case will stand disposed of.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

sdk+

¶27

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶28

Contempt Case (Civil) 1179/20 - : 4 :-

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

OTHER EXHIBITS:

¶31

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-062020 IN WP(C) NO. 12252/2020 (F) OF THIS COURT.

Paulose a. Arickal v. C.K.Baiju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paulose a. Arickal v. C.K.Baiju

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

Sprout Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

John Thomson Vs the Director of Mining and Geology Department

K.Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala

Unni a Vs State of Kerala

Antony Vs State of Kerala

Kulsam Beevi Vs State of Kerala