K.Marakkar v. K.Asaf

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2015/5TH JYAISHTA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 316 of 2015 (S) IN WP(C).7400/2010 ---------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7400/2010 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 25-07-2014 PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

------------------------------- K.MARAKKAR, AGED 77 YEARS S/O.AHAMMED, PWD CONTRACTOR, P.O.ATHAVANAD KATTILANGADI, THIRUNAVAYA, TIRUR MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, P.ABDU AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.SAIDU HAJI, PWD CONTRACTOR, POOZHITHARA HOUSE, P.O.EDARICODE KLARI SOUTH, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN SRI.J.RAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS NO.3&4 IN THE WPC:

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

1. K.V.ASAF FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER ROADS AND BRIDGES, PWD NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE-673032

2. MOHAMMED BASHEER FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ROADS DIVISION, MANJERI-676121 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER PWD SRI.P.M.A.KALAM, THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

C.O.(C).316/15 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.7.2014 IN W.P.(C). 7400/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE R1(A):TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.3.2015. ANNEXURE R1(B):TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.3.2015. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

======================== C.O.(C).No.316 OF 2015 ======================== Dated this the 26th day of May, 2015

JUDGMENT

It is alleging wilful disobedience with the directions of this Court in judgment dated 25.7.2014 in W.P.(C).No.7400 of 2010 that this contempt case has been filed. When this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel on both sides submitted that the directions in the aforesaid judgment have been complied with. Recording the said submission, this contempt case is closed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge spc