Kerala High Court
Jayanandan vs A.V.Anupama on 2 August, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2024:KER:59829
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1654 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2023 IN WP(C) NO.23031 OF 2022 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS:
1 JAYANANDAN
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O.ACHUTHAN, POTTANTHADATHIL HOUSE, PERAMANGALAM.P.O.,
THRISSUR-680545, NOW RESIDING AT POTTANTHADATHIL HOUSE,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003.
2 UMA JAYANANDAN
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O.JAYANANDAN, POTTANTHADATHIL HOUSE,
PERAMANGALAM.P.O., THRISSUR-680545, NOW RESIDING AT
POTTANTHADATHIL HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR- 680003.
BY ADVS.
C.A.CHACKO
C.M.CHARISMA
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:
A.V.ANUPAMA
(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),
SECRETARY, KAIPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MUNDOOR.P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680541.
BY ADV
SRI. GANGESH K B
SRI. ASHI M.C (GP)
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1654 OF 2024
2
2024:KER:59829
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------------------
Contempt Case (C) No.1654 of 2024
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2024
JUDGMENT
By the Judgment dated 27.10.2023, this Court directed the 3 rd
respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P12
complaint filed by the petitioner. An affidavit has been filed by the
respondent stating that the panchayath has taken a decision on
24.02.2024 and 03.07.2024. Copy of the said decisions have also
been produced as Annexure R1(a) and R1(b).
2. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the decision taken as per Annexure R1(b) does not indicate the
time within which the work will be carried out and it is only a
camouflage for the purpose of creating an impression that the order
is complied with.
3. Considering the nature of directions issued in the
judgment, Annexure R1(a) and R1(b) can be said to be in compliance
of the same. A contempt of court cannot be borne out from the
nature of the order that has been issued. If the petitioner is
aggrieved by the order its remedy is to approach the appropriate
forum for appropriate relief.
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1654 OF 2024
2024:KER:59829
In view of the above, I find that, proceedings need not be
continued in this contempt case. Accordingly this contempt petition
is closed, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to initiate
appropriate proceedings, if aggrieved by the orders produced as
Annexure R1(a) and R1(b) before the appropriate court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
HKH/02.08.2024
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1654 OF 2024
2024:KER:59829
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1654/2024
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE
PANCHAYATH COMMITTE DATED 24/04/2024
ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE
PANCHAYATH COMMITTE DATED 03/07/2024
