M.K. Santhakumari vs Mohammed Hanish
2022 Latest Caselaw 7824 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944
                 CON.CASE(C) NO. 747 OF 2022
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22854/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
                           KERALA
PETITIONER:

         M.K. SANTHAKUMARI
         AGED 75 YEARS, W/O.M.P.GANGADHARAN,
         HOUSE NO.242, SHELTER, PTP NAGAR, VATTIYURKKAVU
         P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
         BY ADVS.
         B.SAJEEV KUMAR
         THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN
         BLOSSOM MATHEW


RESPONDENTS:

    1    MOHAMMED HANISH,
         AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
         PRESENTLY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
         INDUSTRIES, STATE OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
         PIN - 695001
    2    SIVAKUMAR
         AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
         PRESENTLY THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES
         CENTRE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
    3    V.R.PREMKUMAR
         AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
         PRESENTLY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM,
         COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM,
         PIN - 676595
         BY ADVS.
         ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
         GOVERNMENT PLEADER(GP-1)
         SMT PARVATHY.K-GP


     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO.747/2022         2

                           JUDGMENT

When this matter was called today, the learned counsel for

the petitioner submitted that, after this contempt case was filed,

the respondents had acceded to his client's request and are

complying with the directions in the judgment. He added that

his client has already remitted necessary registration fee and

that the registration is likely to happen in the next two days.

Resultantly, I close this contempt; however, leaving liberty

to the petitioner to seek a rehearing after a week, if the afore

action is not completed.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/28.6

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 747/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 MEMO OF CHARGES TO 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure2 MEMO OF CHARGES TO 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure3 MEMO OF CHARGES TO 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/09/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) 22854 OF 2020 Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/02/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/03/2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a) True copy of the GO (Rt.)No.1010/2019/ID dated 09.10.2019