Muhammed Haneefa vs Abdul Jaleel K.M

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
                 CON.CASE(C) NO. 458 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23575/2021 OF HIGH COURT
                          OF KERALA
PETITIONER:

            MUHAMMED HANEEFA
            AGED 37 YEARS
            S/O. YOUSAF PERUKULATHI, PADUVATHIL HOUSE,
            ELOOKARA, MUPPATHADOM P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM -
            683110.
            BY ADV K.V.RASHMI

RESPONDENT:

    1       ABDUL JALEEL K.M
            SECRETARY, KADUNGALLOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
            MUPPATHADOM P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683110.
    2       ABDUL JALEEL
            SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT STANDING COMMITTEE,
            KADUNGALLOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUPPATHADOM P.O,
            ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683110.
    3       SAJANA K.S.
            ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
            DEPARTMENT, KADUNGALLOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
            MUPPATHADOM P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683110.
            BY ADV DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN


        THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Cont.Case(C)No.458 of 2022
                                  2



                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of June, 2022 By the judgment in WP(C) No.23575 of 2021, this Court permitted the petitioner to make available the bills relating to purchase of aluminium fabrication materials before the 3 rd respondent and respondents 3 to 5 were directed to process the bill immediately on receipt of the bill and pay the admitted amount to the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rs.1,75,031/- is the admitted amount and the respondents have paid only Rs.96,994/-. Therefore, there is a prima facie contempt.

3. The learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents submitted that on examination of the materials supplied by the petitioner and on processing the bill, it was found by the respondents that the amount due to the petitioner is only Rs.96,994/-. The said amount has been paid. The respondents have not committed any contempt of court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents cannot take a different stand. In an earlier Cont.Case(C)No.458 of 2022 3 valuation statement, the respondents had admitted an amount of Rs.1,75,031/- as payable and the respondents cannot take a diametrically opposed view.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. The direction of this Court was to respondents 3 to 5 in the writ petition to process the bill submitted by the petitioner and pay the admitted amount to the petitioner. The respondents have found that the amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.96,994/-. In view of the payment of the admitted amount by the respondents, this Court finds that directions contained in the judgment have been complied with.

Accordingly, the contempt of court case is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to recover any other amount if due to the petitioner under the contract, through appropriate means.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE AJ