Mujeeb V.M. vs Athul B. Manappadan
2021 Latest Caselaw 8066 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

         Con.Case(C).No.406 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 27767/2019

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27767/2019(U) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

               MUJEEB V.M., AGED 32 YEARS
               S/O. MUSTAFA, VAYALODATH HOUSE, WEST VELYATHUNAD,
               KARAMALLOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 511.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.R.ROHITH
               SRI.SAYED MURTHALA THANGAL
               SMT.HARISHMA P.THAMPI

RESPONDENTS:

               ATHUL B. MANAPPADAN
               (AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), S/O. M.V.BALAN,
               CONVENER, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
               KARUMALLOOR PANCHAYATH OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
               PIN-683 511.

               SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case(C).No.406 OF 2021

                                    2


                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9th day of March 2021

When this matter was called today, the learned Senior

Government Pleader, Sri.Mathew George Vadakkel, conceded

that the order, dated 24.08.2020, has been issued by the

LLMC without hearing the petitioner. He submitted that due

to an inadvertent omission, it was failed to note that this

Court had directed the petitioner to be heard before final

orders are issued by the LLMC. He, therefore, prayed that a

further opportunity be given to the LLMC to issue a fresh

order, after hearing the petitioner and submitted that the

present order will be withdrawn, if it is so permitted.

2. Taking note of the afore submissions and since this

Court had directed the LLMC to issue orders only after

hearing the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to accede to the

suggestion now made by the learned Senior Government

Pleader.

In the afore circumstances, I close this contempt case

recording the undertaking of the learned Senior Government

Pleader on behalf of the respondent, that a fresh order will be Con.Case(C).No.406 OF 2021

issued, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

It is needless to say that if the afore undertaking is not

complied with by the respondent, the petitioner will be at full

liberty to approach this Court with a fresh contempt of court

case.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

STU JUDGE Con.Case(C).No.406 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE 1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.27767 OF 2019 DATED 18.10.2019 OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.