Dismissed

Mohammed Shafi, v. v.a.Sahadevan

Kerala HC4 Oct 2021Con.Case(C)/1417/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt case regarding the non-compliance of high court directions to alter stage vehicle timings. The respondent cited COVID restrictions and seating capacity differences as reasons for delay, explaining that a timing conference could not be held. The court found no prima facie case for contempt and directed the petitioner to exhaust legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case was closed with a direction for the petitioner to exhaust remedies in accordance with law.

Mohammed Shafi, Vs v.a.Sahadevan — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1417 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 12TH ASWINA, 1943 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1417 OF 2021

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28072/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶9

MOHAMMED SHAFI, AGED 62 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED HAJI, LAVERNA HOUSE, MELE KOZHICHENA, TIRUR.

¶10

BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

V.A.SAHADEVAN, AGED 50 YEARS

¶13

FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM CIVIL STATION ROAD, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶14

SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GP

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1417 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This Contempt Case is preferred alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court.

¶20

An affidavit has been filed by the respondent wherein it is stated that in terms of the directions issued by this Court, the request of the petitioner was considered and it was found that the seating capacity of both the vehicles was different and when the timings are changed, it was likely to affect the stage carriage operating service. It is also stated that it would also amount to a variation of permit and the intention of the petitioner is to vary the permit under the pretext of interchange of timings. According to the respondent, there was some delay in complying with the request as due to COVID restrictions, a timing conference could not be held. The respondent has expressed his regret and apology for the delay.

¶21

Having considered the submissions, I do not think that a case for contempt is made out. The petitioner may exhaust his remedies in accordance with law.

¶22

This Contempt Case is closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

sru

¶27

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1417 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1417/2021

¶30

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE

¶31

Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 28072 OF 2020 DATED 17.12.2020.

¶32

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 15.8.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶33

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE:

¶34

Annexure R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 18.9.2021 ISSUED IN COMPLIANCE OF ANNEXURE A1 JUDGMENT

Mohammed Shafi, v. v.a.Sahadevan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Shafi, v. v.a.Sahadevan

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

Aseena P Vs State of Kerala

P.J. John., Vs State of Kerala

Amrutham M.S. Vs State of Kerala

The Charter School Parents Association Vs State of Kerala

Sathi P. Vs a. Shajahan IAS

Jesnet C. Mathew, Vs State of Kerala