P.S.Muraleedharan v. Dr.Biju George Varghese

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/20TH BHADRA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 888 of 2015 (S) ----------------------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 146/2015 DATED 06-01-2015) ---------------------- PETITIONER/PETITIONER :

------------------------------------------- P.S.MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. LATE SREEDHARAN, WARDEN, CENTRALIZED SPORTS HOSTEL, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, COMING UNDER THE KERALA SPORTS COUNCIL (RESIDING AT: BLANGAD VEEDU, VAYALAR P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT) BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:

----------------------------------------------------- DR.BIJU GEORGE VARGHESE, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS THE SECRETARY IN THE KERALA SPORTS COUNCIL, STATUE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. BY SRI.K.ANAND,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN, SC, KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

COC.NO.888/2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEX 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06/01/2015 IN WP(C). NO.146/2015 ANNEX II COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KSCC/BI/3773/14 DATED 10/05/2015 RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEX R1(A) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/02/2015 ANNEX R1(B) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2/3/2015 ANNEX R1(C) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/03/2015 ANNEX R1(D) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/03/2015 /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE sts

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

................................................. Cont. Case (C) No. 888 of 2015 (S) ............................................... Dated this the 11th day of September, 2015

JUDGMENT

It appears that as per the judgment dated 06.01.2015 in W.P. (C) No.146 of 2015, the 2nd respondent has considered and passed appropriate orders on Ext.P7 representation. Accordingly, no contempt arise from the aforementioned judment. Therefore, this contempt of court case is closed, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order. Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE AMV/14/09/