Raran Kandath Aboobacker v. Sri.Shaiju Varghese

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/27TH JYAISHTA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 622 of 2015 (S) -------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT DATED 27-11-2013 IN WP(C).NO. 28610/2011 . ......

PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER IN WP(C).NO.28610/2011: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RARAN KANDATH ABOOBACKER, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KUNHUMOHAMED HAJEE, TRIKKANAPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 573.

BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN.

RESPONDENTS/1ST RESPONDENT IN WP(C).NO.28610/2011: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. SRI.SHAIJU VARGHESE, SECRETARY, KUTTIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., 679 571, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

2. SMT. K.M. KUMARI, PRESIDENT, KUTTIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., 679 571, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME OF THE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER).

BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs.

Con.Case(C).No. 622 of 2015 (S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/02/2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 21/10/2011 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/09/2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07/03/2015 GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/04/2015 OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR THE LOCAL SELF GOVT. INSTITUTIONS. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

--------------------------------------- C.O.C. No.622 of 2015 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2015.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner had filed the contempt case, on the ground that the directions in the judgment to pass orders on the appeal, was not complied with. However, now the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat contends that the same has been disposed of, but beyond the time as stipulated in the judgment. In such circumstances, no contempt would lie and the contempt case is closed.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE sp