T.O.Paulose v. A.P.M.Mohammed Hanish

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/15TH SRAVANA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 549 of 2015 (S) ----------------------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 2359/2011 DATED 23/10/2014) ---------------- PETITIONER/PETITIONER :

------------------------------------------ T.O.PAULOSE, S/O.OUSEPH, AGED 60 YEARS, P.W.D CONTRACTOR, NEAR CLASSIC THEATRE, TALIPARAMBA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.PIN- 670 141. BY SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.T.T.RAKESH SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 :

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

1. A.P.M.MUHAMMED HANISH, THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

2. M.PENNAMMA, THE CHIEF ENGINEER (BUILDINGS), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER,TRIVANDRUM -695 033.

3. V. BALAKRISHNAN, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BUILDINGS AND LOCAL WORKS (NORTH CIRCLE), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CALICUT- 1.

R1 TO R3 BY ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.K.A.JALEEL BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

COC.NO.549/2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEX A1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.2359/2011 DATED 23/10/2014. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEX R2(A) COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1-1128/2011 DATED 20/12/2014. ANNEX R2(B) COPY OF THE COUNTERFOIL OF TREASURY CHEQUE AND SIGNATURE SHOWING THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RECEIPT OF THE SAME.

/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE sts

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

-------------------------------------------- Contempt Case (Civil) No. 549 of 2015 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2015

J U D G M E N T

It is stated that pursuant to direction of this Court in the judgment dated 23.10.2014 a cheque for 11,07,981/- has been ₹ issued in favour of the petitioner after deducting statutory dues. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the amount is incorrect and they are entitled for higher amount than the amount now calculated.

3.

This Court is of the view that, if the petitioner has any grievance against the amount, the petitioner is free to raise objections in appropriate manner.

Accordingly this Contempt of Court Case is closed. Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

Pn