High Court of KeralaCon.Case(C)/127/2015closed

Sainaba v. Roykumar

2015-02-18Honourable Mr.Justice A.M.Shaffique,Honourable The Ag.Chief Justice Mr.Ashok Bhushan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/29TH MAGHA, 1936 Con.Case(C).No. 127 of 2015 (S) IN WA.587/2014 ------------------------------------------------ PETITIONERS :

-----------------

1. SAINABA AGED 50 YEARS D/O.EDAVANAKARAN AVARA, PARAMBAN HOUSE VALLUVANGAD (P.O), ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 676 521.

2. ABOOBACKER AGED 44 YEARS S/O.EDAVANAKARAN AHAMMED, PARAMBAN HOUSE VALLUVANGAD (P.O), ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 676 521.

BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH RESPONDENTS :

-------------------

1. ROYKUMAR AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 676 521.

2. JAYAKUMAR AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS THE TALUK SURVEYOR, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAMDISTRICT PIN - 676 521.

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. C.R. SYAM KUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.C.J. & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 127 OF 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of February, 2015

JUDGMENT

Shaffique, J.

This contempt has been filed alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in judgment dated 17.03.2014 in W.P.(C) No.2745 of 2014 which has been confirmed in W.A. No.587 of 2014. It is inter alia contended that despite the directions issued by this Court no orders had been passed and communicated to the petitioner.

2. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the Additional Tahsildar has already passed orders on 15.11.2014 after taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner as well. Under such circumstances it is argued that there is no willful contempt, since orders have already been passed by the Additional Tahsildar on 15.11.2014. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the said order, it shall be open for the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. As matters stand now, since order has already been passed, we close this Contempt Case. Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice.

A.M. Shaffique, Judge.

ttb/18/02