Dismissed

Jyothilakshmi M.T. v. Sri. Subash, IAS

Kerala HC11 Jan 2021Con.Case(C)/1906/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt of court case arises from an allegation that the 4th respondent failed to forward a report to the 2nd respondent as per a previous court order, causing an ultimate decision to be taken by the Chief Engineer. The High Court found the directions were substantially complied with as the District Magistrate passed an order considering the report, thus closing the case.

What did the court decide?

The contempt of court case is closed.

Jyothilakshmi M.T. Vs Sri. Subash, IAS — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/21TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

Con.Case(C).No.1906 OF 2020 IN WP(C)No.11799/2020

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/08/2020 IN WP(C) 11799/2020(Y) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

JYOTHILAKSHMI M.T., AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. V.P. MOHANAN, VALIYAPURAYIL, PAZHASSI, KUTTIYATTOOR VILLAGE, PAVANNURMATTA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670602.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 SRI. SUBASH, IAS, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR-670001.

¶12

2 AJITH RAMACHANDRAN, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS), LMS VELLAYAMBALAM ROAD, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

3 M. JAGADHISH, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD DIVISION, KANNUR-670001.

¶14

R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJKUMAR

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Con.Case(C)No.1906/2020

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2021

¶20

As per judgment dated 25.08.2020 in WP(C)No.11799/

¶21

2020, this Court passed an order to the following effects:

¶22

“In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4^th respondent to submit a report to the 2^nd respondent based on Ext.P11. On receipt of such report from 4^th respondent, the 2^nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders on the request made by the 6^th respondent for issuance of NOC. The 4^th respondent shall forwarded the report to the 2^nd respondent within two weeks. The 2^nd respondent shall take a final decision, within four weeks thereafter.”

¶23

The learned counsel for the contempt petitioner

¶24

submitted that 4^th respondent instead of forwarding the report to the 2^nd respondent has sent it to the Chief Engineer, who in turn issued Annexure A7 returning the report and directing the Executive Engineer to issue NOC for petroleum outlets based on the guidelines issued on 16.10.2020. According to the contempt petitioner, when the direction to

¶25

the 4^th respondent was to forward the report to the 2^nd

¶26

respondent, issuance of Annexure A7 and consequential

¶27

Con.Case(C)No.1906/2020

¶28

¶29

order, amounts to Contempt of Court.

¶30

The statement filed by the Government Pleader would show that the District Magistrate has passed Annexure-1 order dated 11.12.2020 pursuant to the directions of this Court. The said order dated 11.12.2020 would show that the District Magistrate has considered the report drawn by the Executive Engineer pursuant to the order of this Court delivered on 25.08.2020 and thereafter passed Annexure-1.

¶31

In the circumstances, this Court finds that the directions contained in the judgment in WP(C)No.11799/2020 are substantially complied with. Accordingly, this Contempt of Court case is closed. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge Annexure-1 order dated 11.12.2020 of the District Magistrate through appropriate proceedings, if he is so adviced.

¶32

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.11799/2020 DATED 25/08/2020.

¶39

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH ENDORSEMENT DATED 03/09/2020.

¶40

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROAD, THALIPARAMBA DATED 06/02/2020.

¶41

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14/09/2020.

¶42

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15/09/2020.

¶43

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05/10/2020.

¶44

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11/11/2020.

Jyothilakshmi M.T. v. Sri. Subash, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyothilakshmi M.T. v. Sri. Subash, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chicago Constructions International (P) Ltd. Vs Kerala Water Authority

Divine Gas Enterprises Vs Government of India

Navin Construction Corporation Vs Kerala Water Authority

Biju Augustine Vs Kerala Water Authority

Konari Hamza Koya Vs the District Collector Malappuram

Kingdom Protection Services Private Limited Vs the Registrar, Cochin University of Science and Technology