Sajeevan P.A vs Biji P.V
2022 Latest Caselaw 8207 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
       FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
                        CON.CASE(C) NO. 1953 OF 2021
    AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2020 IN WP(C)NO.297/2020
                          OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P(C):

             SAJEEVAN P.A.
             AGED 48 YEARS
             S/O. APPUKUTTAN, PANIKKATTIL HOUSE, SREENARAYANAPURAM,
             PANANAGAD P.O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
             PIN-680 665

             BY ADVS.
             LINDONS C.DAVIS
             E.U.DHANYA
             SWATHY A.P.



RESPONDENTS/2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P(C):

             BIJI P.V.
             (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
             EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
             BUILDING DIVISION, THRISSUR-680 020


     THIS    CONTEMPT    OF   COURT    CASE     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                      1

                   ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
               ===========================
                  Cont. Case (C) No.1953 of 2021
                       [arising out of judgment dated
                     08.01.2020 in W.P(C) No.297/2020]
               ===========================
                     Dated this the 1st day of July 2022

                             JUDGMENT

Today when the matter has been taken up for consideration,

Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader would submit

on the basis of instructions that orders have been passed by the

competent authority granting administrative sanction and finance

sanction, as per G.O(Rt.) No.4078/2022/Fin. dated 01.06.2022 and

G.O (Rt.) No.700/2022/SCSTDD dated 24.06.2022 and that the amount

will be disbursed to the petitioner, without much delay.

2. Accordingly the respondent is directed to ensure that the due

amounts are immediately released to the petitioner, without any further

delay, at any rate, within an outer time limit of six weeks from the date of

production of a copy of this judgment.

3. The Secretary to the office of the Advocate General will

forward copies of this judgment to the Principal Secretary to Government

in the Finance Department as well as the Principal Secretary to

Government in the SC/ST Development Department, for necessary Cont. Case (C) No.1953 of 2021

information and also to ensure that the due amounts are immediately

released by the respondent-Officer, without any further delay to the

petitioner. In case there is any undue delay in that regard, the petitioner

will be at liberty to file an application to re-open the above contempt

proceedings.

With these observations and directions and with the said liberty to

the petitioner, the above contempt of court case will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

vgd CON.CASE(C) 1953/2021

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1953/2021

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.297/2020 DATED 08.01.2020

ANNEXURE A2 A COPY OF THE IA NO.1/2020 IN WPC NO.297/2020 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT