Dismissed

Johny K v. Viswanathan

Kerala HC4 Mar 2024Con.Case(C)/308/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt of court case where the petitioner alleged non-compliance with an interim order regarding completion certificates and door numbers. The court found the delay was due to pending regularisation of unauthorised construction by the petitioner, not demand for fees, and thus held no contempt existed, closing the case.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt of Court Case is closed.

Johny K Vs Viswanathan — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945 CON.CASE(C) NO. 308 OF 2024

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.40024 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER/S:

¶6

JOHNY K AGED 67 YEARS SON OF POULOSE, KAITHARATHU, CHALAKKUDY P.O., CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680307 BY ADVS. P.M.ZIRAJ IRFAN ZIRAJ

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

VISWANATHAN AGED 45 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680307 BY ADVS. SHEEJO CHACKO LIKHITHA E.S(K/279/2014) S.S.SAILAKSHMI(K/736/2009)

¶9

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

Con. Case(C) No.308 of 2024

¶11

: 2 :

¶12

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

¶13

- - - - Con. Case(C) No.308 of 2024

¶14

- - - - Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2024

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner has approached this Court complaining that Annexure A2 interim order has not been complied with, wherein an interim direction was given to respondents 4 to 6 to issue completion certificate and permanent door numbers to the shop rooms of the petitioner constructed as per Ext.P2 building permit without insisting for payment of any fee either by cash or in the form of bank guarantee.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that they have not insisted for any fee or cash in the form of bank guarantee, but the numbering was not done for the reason that there was unauthorised construction, which need to be regularised by paying requisite fee by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has submitted an application for regularisation and the requisite fee has been paid on 28.02.2024 and that a decision on the same will be taken within a period of one week.

¶18

Since non-compliance of direction was not for the reason that they have insisted for payment of any fee and the same was only

¶19

Con. Case(C) No.308 of 2024

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

due to some unauthorised construction by the petitioner, which needs to be regularised, I find no contempt as alleged in this case. Accordingly, the Contempt of Court Case is closed.

¶22

Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

¶23

sm/

¶24

Con. Case(C) No.308 of 2024 : 4 :

¶25

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 308/2024

¶26

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.9.2023 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 30.11.2023 IN WP(C) NO.40024 OF 2023 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

Johny K v. Viswanathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johny K v. Viswanathan

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

Minil Kumar Vs District Collector

Basheer C.K Vs Additional District Magistrate

Nair Service Society Vs the Tahsildar(Lr)

K.R.Girijan Vs Dinesh Mon N.T

Baby Jaseena Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises

Kunnappilly Venu Padmanabhan Vs State of Kerala Rep by Its Secretary Department of Public Works