E.K.Abdul Khader v. K.K.Subramanian

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 922 of 2015 (S) IN WP(C).137/2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 137/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DATED 04-02-2015 PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC: - ---------------------------------------------------- E.K.ABDUL KHADER, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. E.A.KOCHUNNI, ERUPPAKKOTTIL HOUSE, PERINGALA.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SRI.R.HARISHANKAR RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT IN WPC: - --------------------------------------------------------------- K.K.SUBRAHMANIAN, THE SECRETARY, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUMARAPURAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM-683565.

BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Con.Case(C).No. 922 of 2015 (S) IN WP(C).137/2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

ANNEXURE 1 :

TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) No. 137 OF 2015 (N) DATED 04.02.2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

ANNEXURE 2 :

COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT PRODUCING ANNEXURE 1 JUDGMENT.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :

EXHIBIT R1(a) :

TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED FROM THE KUNNATHUNADU PANCHAYATH DATED 08.09.2015.

EXHIBIT R1(b) :

TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO SRI. P.N. MOHANAN, GAMA INDUSTRIES DATED 21.03.2015.

// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/-

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

--------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C) No. 922 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner initially approached this Court contending that the respondent Panchayat has been insisting on the petitioner to have a licence though it has allowed many other people to function without licence. Through judgment dated 04.02.2015, this Court directed the respondent Grama Panchayat to consider petitioner's Exhibit P9 representation, which the petitioner had submitted to the respondent earlier.

2. In the course of time, complaining that Annexure-1 judgment has not been complied with, the petitioner has filed the present Contempt Case.

3. Indeed, though it cannot be called an undertaking on the part of the respondent, in the counter affidavit, nevertheless, the respondent has stated that it has been taking all diligent steps to ensure that no person carries on business in the vicinity without any valid licence.

Cont. Case (C) No. 922 of 2015 Trusting the efficacy of the respondent officials and hoping that they will enforce the law in letter and spirit, this Court closes the Contempt Case as having not survived for further consideration.

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-