High Court of KeralaCon.Case(C)/804/2015closed

Arakkal Suhara v. Shri.P.Mohanan

2015-08-12Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/21ST SRAVANA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 804 of 2015 (S) IN WP(C).2100/2015 ---------------------------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2100/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 31-01-2015) PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

-------------------------- SMT.ARAKKAL SUHARA AGED 63 YEARS W/O.LATE MUHAMMAD KUTTY, ARAKKAL HOUSE FORT COCHIN P.O, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 001 BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 :

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

1. SHRI.P.MOHANAN (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)CHAIRMAN & DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) THE TALUK LAND BOARD COLLECTORATE, TRISSUR, PIN-680 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS

2. SHRI SAJJAN C.V (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERTHE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(CELLING RETURN)'COLLECTORATE TRISSUR 680 001

3. M.S JAYA(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, TRISSUR PIN 680 001

4. RAJAMANIKOM, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM-682 030 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. GEORGE JOSEPH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

.............................................................................. CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (C)No.804 OF 2015 ......................................................................... Dated this the 12th August, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The learned Government Pleader submits that the direction given by this Court vide judgment dated 30.01.2015 in W.P.(C) No.2100 of 2015 has been complied with by passing an order dated 28.07.2015. A copy of the said order was served to the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

In the above circumstance, this Court finds that nothing further survives to be considered in this Contempt matter and accordingly the Contempt of Court case is closed without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the party to challenge the said order if the same is detrimental to the rights and interests of the petitioner. .

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE lk