Anilkumar T.G. v. K.Suresh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/16TH SRAVANA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 843 of 2015 (S) ------------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.12253 OF 2014, DATED 23-05-2014 -------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER :

-------------------------------------------- ANILKUMAR T.G., AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.T.A.GOPALAN, THENADIKULATHIL HOUSE, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR-680 006.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.SABU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.1 :

----------------------------------------------------------- K.SURESH, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680 001.

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAMPRASAD UNNI.T THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

Con.Case(C).No. 843 of 2015 (S) ------------------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

ANNEXURE A:

TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.05.2014 IN W.P.(C).NO.12253 OF 2014.

ANNEXURE B:

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2014 IN R.P.NO.478 OF 2014 IN W.P.(C).NO.12253 OF 2014. ANNEXURE C:

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2014 I.A.NO.304 OF 2014 IN R.P.NO.478 OF 2014 IN W.P.(C).NO.12253 OF 2014.

ANNEXURE D:

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL.01.2015. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

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

Msd.

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

................................................. Cont. Court Case No. 843 of 2015 ............................................... Dated this the 7th day of August, 2015

JUDGMENT

This Contempt case has been filed alleging the non compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 23.05.2014.

2.In the aforesaid judgment, it was directed that, if the petitioner is able to produce any license along with proper representation before the 1st respondent, then the 1st respondent shall consider the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

3.In the contempt case, it is alleged that, though, he has produced the license, the respondent has not considered the same.

4.If the petitioner has a valid license, nothing prevents him from carrying on the business and if anybody prevents the same, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority/court.

Cont. Court Case No. 843 of 2015 Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not think that any wilful contempt has arisen in this case. Accordingly, this contempt of court case is closed. sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE AMV/10/08/