Petitioner filed contempt petition alleging non-compliance with earlier court directives regarding a building permit application. Court found petitioner complied with Secretary's directions post-filing and closed contempt case.
Contempt of Court case closed accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1943
Con.Case(C).No.563 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 41508/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 41508/2017(A) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC
DR.C.RAJASEKHARAN AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. SIVATHAM, THAIKKAD VILLAGE, VAZHUTHACAUD. M.P. APPAN NAGAR, THAICAUD P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN WPC
1 DEEPA L.S AGE OF THE RESPONDENT AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.
2 ANJU.W.C.
AGE OF THE RESPONDENT AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) R1-2 BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Con.Case(C).No.563 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 41508/2017
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of March 2021
This contempt petition is filed complaining
that the directives contained in the judgment dated 08.02.2019 in W.P.(C)No.41508/2017 is not complied
with.
consequential direction issued by this Court to finalise the application at the earliest possible
time. The grievance of the petitioner in the contempt petition is that, the directions issued in
the judgment are not complied with.
respondent, from where I am satisfied that certain
directions were issued to the petitioner by the Secretary of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation in order to process the application submitted by the
3
Con.Case(C).No.563 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 41508/2017
petitioner for building permit, which was not complied with by the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, I do not think
there was any deliberate and willful action on the
part of the respondents in complying with the directions issued by this Court in order to proceed against them under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, atleast for the time being. That being so,
nothing survives to be considered in the contempt petition, the Contempt of Court case is closed accordingly.
SD/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
JUDGE
hmh
4
Con.Case(C).No.563 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 41508/2017
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NP. 41508/2017 DATED 08.02.2019.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE CONCURRENCE GRANTED BY THE REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER DATED 30.06.2015 TO DR. MAHESH.
RESPODENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL
Dr. C. Rajasekharan
Deepa L.S.
Anju.W.C.
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
