T.V.Nafeesa Beevi v. G.Kamalavardhana Rao

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2015/11TH PHALGUNA, 1936 Con.Case (C).No.280 of 2015 (S) ------------------------------------------------- (WP(C) NO.30347/2012 DATED 10-12-2014).

..

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

------------------------------------- T.V.NAFEESA BEEVI,W/O.ABDUL RAZAK,AGED 85 YEARS, RESIDING AT NIZAR MANZIL,THALIKKONAM, P.C.JUNCTION P.O,KUDAVOOR,CHIRAYINKEEZH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.4:

---------------------------------------------------- SRI.G.KAMALAVARDHANA RAO, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.VIJULAL THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

pk

Con.Case (C).No. 280 of 2015 (S) ----------------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE-1:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.12.2014 IN W.P(C) NO.30347/2012.

ANNEXURE-2:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERNO.G.O(RT) NO.40/15/F & CSD DATED 7.2.2015.

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE pk

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

-------------------------------------------- Cont.Case (c).No. 280 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March,2015

J U D G M E N T

----------------------------- The petitioner alleged that the judgment has not been complied with in its true perspective. Annexure A2 is the order passed by the authority pursuant to the direction of this Court. This would indicate,they are unable to reconsider the matter. The petitioner submits that the direction was only to reconsider the matter after imposing penalty. The finding is that the licence has been cancelled, so the application cannot be considered. This finding is contrary to the direction of this Court. Though it is mentioned that licence cannot be transferred after it was cancelled, nevertheless, discussion has been made, why it cannot be reconsidered. In view of the above, I do not find any contempt has been made out. The petitioner is free to challenge Annexure A2 order.

sd/ A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE jm/