Dismissed

P. Harikumar v. Smt. Gayathri Devi M.

Kerala HC2 Jun 2023Con.Case(C)/538/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt of court case, the court opined that a contempt action does not lie as long as the impugned orders are challenged in appropriate proceedings. The court dismissed the case, stating it would remain closed until those procedural challenges are raised.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is closed; contentions remain open for challenge in appropriate proceedings.

P. Harikumar Vs Smt. Gayathri Devi M. — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

CON.CASE(C) NO. 538 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28073/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

P. HARIKUMAR
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. PRABHAKARAN NAIR, NALUPARA KRISHNA NIVAS,
PAKAKKAZHAM, AMABALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688005
BY ADVS.
ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K.
SANDRA SUNNY
ARUN KUMAR M.A

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1SMT.GAYATHRI DEVI M.
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM BOARD
HEADQUARTERS NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

¶11

2 SRI.PRAKASH B.S.

¶12

AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
DEVASWOM BOARD HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
BY ADV C.K.PAVITHRAN

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶14

CON.CASE(C) NO.538 OF 2023

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2023

¶18

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on either side

¶19

that an order has been passed in the petitioner’s case relying on a general order passed on 25.01.2023.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

¶21

general order passed as well as the order passed in the petitioner’s case is directly against the findings contained in the judgment.

¶22

Even if that be so, I am of the opinion that the orders passed have

¶23

to be challenged by the petitioner and that an action for contempt of court would not lie without those orders being set aside. In the above view of the matter, this contempt of court case is closed, leaving open the contentions of the petitioner and his right to challenge the general

¶24

order passed as well as the order passed in his case in appropriate proceedings.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

NP

¶29

CON.CASE(C) NO.538 OF 2023

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 538/2023

¶32

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)
NO.28073 OF 2022 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
DATED 01.11.2022

¶33

ANNEXURE A2THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS

¶34

RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES
ORDERCOPY OF ORDER NUMBER ROC 14509/18/MIS DATED
16-5-2023
ORDERCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. ROC 10947/22/MIS-1
(1)DATED 25-01-2023

P. Harikumar v. Smt. Gayathri Devi M.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Harikumar v. Smt. Gayathri Devi M.

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

Pushpa Jacob Vs Vishnu Raj. P. IAS

Shamsudeen, Vs Suresh Babu K.C.

Prem J Lal Vs S Gayathri Devi

Joseph Xavier Vs Vishnu Raj. P. IAS

P R Sukumaran, Vs Vijay Shankar Pandey

Sajan Peter Vs Mr. S. Venkatesapathy I.A.S.