P.A. Jose v. Rajamanickam, Ias

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2015/10TH CHAITHRA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 302 of 2015 (S) ---------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2113/2014 DATED 21-01-2014 ---------------------- PETITIONER(S) :

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

1. P.A. JOSE, S/O. ANTONY, AGED 66, THIRUVATHUKKAL PAYYAPALLY HOUSE KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

2. DANY JOSE, S/O. THOMAS, AGED 35 ALAPPATT PALATHINKAL HOUSE PERINGAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

3. HIMA DANI, W/O. DANY THOMAS, AGED 31 ALAPATT PALATHINKAL HOUSE PERINGAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

BY ADVS.SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.RILGIN V. GEORGE SRI.R.JAYAKRISHNAN (MUTHUKULAM) SMT.E.U.DHANYA RESPONDENT :

------------------------\ RAJAMANICKAM, IAS AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM-682030.

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. VINCENT THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Mn ...2/-

Con.Case(C).No. 302 of 2015 (S) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

ANNEXURE I : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-1-2014 IN WP(C) NO. 2113 OF 2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19-7-2014 TO THE RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

.............................................................................. CONTEMPT OF COURT (C)No.302 OF 2015 IN W.P.(C)No.2113 OF 2014 ......................................................................... Dated this the 31st March, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The learned Government Pleader submits that the direction given by this Court vide Annexure-I judgment has already been complied with and an order has been passed on 20.03.2015, whereby the request made by the petitioners stands declined. In the said circumstance, no further steps are necessary in this Contempt matter. The Contempt of Court case is closed without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioners to challenge the order stated as passed, as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk