Muhammed Haneefa vs Abdul Jaleel K.M
2022 Latest Caselaw 8011 Ker

           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

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