George T.D. v. M.G.Rajamanickam, District Collector, Ernakulam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/17TH ASWINA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 665 of 2015 (S) --------------------------------------------- WP(C) 29703/2014, DATED 28-11-2014 -------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

----------------------------------------- GEORGE T.D., AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.DANIEL, RESIDING AT THAZAHAMANA HOUSE, VALAKOM, KUNNAKKAL PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, SECRETARY INDIAN PENTACOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD, KUNNACKAL PO ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.A.G.BASIL RESPONDENT(S)/2ND RESPONDENT:

----------------------------------------------------- SRI.M.G.RAJAMANIKKAM, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME OF THE RESPONDENT IS NOW KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CAMP OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682030.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.SANEER THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

PJ

Con.Case(C).No. 665 of 2015 (S) --------------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES --------------------------------------- A1:

A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/11/14 IN WPC.29703/14 A2:

TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9/1/15 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT A3:

TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD RECEIVED BACK, ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECECIPT.

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURS ---------------------------------------- NIL.

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * Contempt of Court Case No.665 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of October 2015

J U D G M E N T

This contempt case has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court as per the judgment dated 28/11/2014.

2.

Statement has been filed by the respondent producing Ext.R1(a).

3.

Having regard to the factual situation involved in the case and appropriate proceedings having been issued by the District Magistrate, I am of the view that further proceedings need not be continued. Accordingly, the contempt case is dropped. It is needless to state that the petitioner is entitled to take further proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid order in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr