High Court of KeralaCon.Case(C)/30/2015closed

P.Nesan v. Antony Chacko

2015-01-16Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/26TH POUSHA, 1936 Con.Case(C).No. 30 of 2015 (S) ------------------------------------------ WP(C) 27091/2014 of THIS HONOURABLE COURT ----------------------------- PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WPC :

------------------------------------------------------- P.NESAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.PAULOSE, EMPANELLED PAINTER, KSRTC PAPPANAMCODE DEPOT, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN THE WPC :

------------------------------------------------------------------ ANTONY CHACKO, MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN 695 023. BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Con.Case(C).No. 30 of 2015 (S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

ANNEXURE A1:

JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 27091/2014 DT 28/10/2014. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :

NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

--------------------------------------- C.O.C (c) No. 30 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2015

JUDGMENT

On 28.10.2014, this Court disposed of W.P. (C) No. 27091 of 2014, directing the respondent corporation to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders thereon within a particular time frame, namely, six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Complaining that to this day the direction of this Court has not been complied with, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

2. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation has submitted that though there is some unavoidable delay, on 18.12.2014, the respondent corporation passed orders rejecting the claim of the petitioner, but the said order was belatedly communicated beyond the date set out by this Court.

C.O.C (c) No. 30 of 2015 Be that as it may, since the respondents have complied with the direction of this Court, I do not see any element of contempt in the present proceedings. Accordingly, the contempt is closed, leaving it open for the petitioner, if aggrieved, to lay challenge against the order dated 18.12.2014 in accordance with law.

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-