Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

P.T. Thomas vs Shri S.M.Vijayanand I.A.S on 8 October, 2007

Author: H.L. Dattu

Bench: H.L.Dattu, K.T.Sankaran

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con Case(C) No. 1033 of 2007()


1. P.T. THOMAS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SHRI S.M.VIJAYANAND I.A.S.
                       ...       Respondent

2. SHRI AJITH KUMAR I.A.S.

3. SMT.K.VANAJ KUMARI

4. SHRI T.V.THOMAS

5. SHRI M.T.JAYAPRAKASH

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.GEORGE(ONAKKOOR)

                For Respondent  :SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :08/10/2007

 O R D E R
                      H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.
             ...................................................................................
                    CONTEMPT CASE (C) No. 1033 OF 2007
             ...................................................................................
                            Dated this the 8th October, 2007

                                         J U D G M E N T

H.L. Dattu, C.J.:

Alleging that the respondents have disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this court while disposing of W.A.No.658 of 2004 dated 07.12.2006, the complainant/petitioner is before us in this Contempt Case filed under sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

2. After the disposal of the Writ Appeal, the respondents, after taking into consideration the orders and directions issued by this court while disposing of the Writ Appeal, have passed a detailed order dated 02.07.2007.

3. In our opinion, if for any reason, the complainant/petitioner is aggrieved by the orders so passed by the respondents on 02.07.2007, the complainant/petitioner is expected to file an appropriate petition/representation before the appropriate forum. In that view of the matter, we do not intend to take cognizance of this Contempt Case since there is neither deliberate nor wilful disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this Court. Accordingly, further proceedings in this Contempt Case requires to be dropped and they are dropped.

Ordered accordingly.

H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE.

lk