High Court of KeralaCon.Case(C)/498/2015closed

Rajeev N v. Mr.Bhooshan

2015-04-07Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/17TH CHAITHRA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 498 of 2015 (S) IN W.P.(C).NO. 7377/2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO. 7377/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 09-03-2015 ................................................... PETITIONER:

-------------------------- RAJEEV N., AGED 38 YEARS S/O.N.GOVINDAN (LATE), NADAKKAVIL HOUSE, AKKIPPADAM PAYYANADAM P.O., NADAKKAVU - 678 583 PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT:

---------------------------- MR.BHOOSHAN AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T. R. RAJESH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Con.Case(C).No. 498 of 2015 (S) IN W.P.(C).NO. 7377/2015 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ---------------------------------------------- ANNEXURE AI:

TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09/03/2015 IN WPC NO. 7377/2015.

ANNEXURE AII:

TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT AS APPEAL NO. 2988/2015.

ANNEXURE AIII:

TRUE COPY OF THE APPLCIATION FOR INTERIM ORDER FILED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL.

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:-NIL --------------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE

V. CHITAMBARESH, J --------------------------------------- Cont. of Court Case No. 498 of 2015 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 07th day of April, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner submits that the defects in the appeal filed have already been cured. It is for the petitioner to move afresh for interim reliefs in the appeal already filed. There is however no case for initiating any contempt of court proceedings. The Contempt of Court Case is hence closed.

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE