High Court of KeralaCon.Case(C)/687/2010dismissed

Annakutty v. Dr.M.Beena, Ias

2015-09-02Honourable Mr.Justice P.N.Ravindran3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/11TH BHADRA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 687 of 2010 (S) -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 33186/2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 18.11.2009 PETITIONER(S):

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

1. ANNAKUTTY, CHAKKITTAPARAMBIL, KALAMPOOR.P.O., PIRAVOM(VIA), PIN-686664.

2. C.M.MOLLY, W/O. THOMAS, THACHETHU HOUSE PANGARAPILLY.P.O., THURUTHIKKARA MULANTHURUTHY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/CONTEMNOR/RESPONDENT NO.4 IN WP: ----------------------------------------------- DR. M.BEENA I.A.S, (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.K. ABOOBACKER THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Con.Case(C).No. 687 of 2010 (S) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 18.11.2009 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.33186 OF 2009. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE R1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DESPATCH CUM STAMP ACCOUNT REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, AND PERTAINING TO 16.11.2009.

ANNEXURE R2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE DESPATCH CUM STAMP ACCOUNT REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE, ERNAKULAM AND PERTAINING TO 21.11.2009. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE.

kp/-

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contempt Case (C) No.687 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2015

JUDGMENT

This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondent herein who was formerly the District Collector of Ernakulam has wilfully violated Annexure I interim order passed by this court on 18.11.2009 in W.P.(C).No.33186 of 2009. After hearing learned counsel on both sides at length, I am not prima facie satisfied that the respondent has wilfully violated Annexure I interim order passed by this court. The contempt case fails and it is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE kp/-