T.L.Radhamma vs S.Sreekala
2024 Latest Caselaw 13860 Ker

Kerala High Court

T.L.Radhamma vs S.Sreekala on 28 May, 2024

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
         Tuesday, the 28th day of May 2024 / 7th Jyaishta, 1946

IA.NO.1/2024 IN CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 1655 OF 2019(S) IN WP(C) 30768/2018

APPLICANT/PETITIONER:

T.L. RADHAMMA, AGED 79 YEARS, W/O. GOPALAN, KANYATHU HOUSE,
KANGARAPPADY VDACOE, 682021, ERNAKULAM.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT 1 & 2:

  1. S. SREEKALA AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KALAMASSERY-ERNAKULAM - 682 021.
  2. VISHNURAJ, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI - 682 001

     Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to re-open/resurrect
the contempt case in the interest of justice.

     This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the
application and this Court's judgment dated 17/03/2023 in COC and the
affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of
M/S. L. RAM MOHAN, M. AUBREY ABRAHAM ISAAC, Advocates for the applicant
in IA/petitioner in COC and of GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the respondents in
IA/COC, the court passed the following:

                                         P.T.O.
                                MOHAMMED NIAS C. P. , J.
                           ============================
                                    I. A. No. 1 of 2024
                                              in
                             Cont. Case (C) No. 1655 of 2019
                           ============================
                            Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024

                                          ORDER

This Court passed a judgment in this case on 17.3.2023, finding

that the Contempt need not be proceeded with and accordingly closing

the same. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner to challenge the

order passed by the respondents.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner that the order has been challenged in a Writ Petition which is

pending.

3. Accordingly, I do not think that there is any need to rehear the

Contempt of Court case.

Without prejudice to any of the contentions raised by the

petitioner that the order passed and impugned in the writ petition is

illegal, this interlocutory application is closed.

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C. P., JUDGE

MMG

28-05-2024 /True Copy/ Deputy Registrar