High Court Kerala High Court

Dr.Anil Kumar K.G. vs Dr.Jeevan on 14 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Dr.Anil Kumar K.G. vs Dr.Jeevan on 14 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con.Case(C).No. 989 of 2010()


1. DR.ANIL KUMAR K.G., S/O.GOPINATHAN K.N.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DR.JEEVAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :14/10/2010

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ================
                Cont.Case (C) NO. 989 OF 2010
                =====================

          Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010

                         J U D G M E N T

By Annexure V order dated 15th of June, 2010, this Court

directed the respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation filed by

the petitioner with notice to the parties. In this petition, what is

complained of is that the order has not been complied with.

2. However, learned Government Pleader submitted that

in compliance with the direction, order dated 9/7/2010 was

passed. It was stated that though notice was issued to the

petitioner on 3/7/10 in the address shown in the writ petition, the

notice was returned by the postal authorities with the

endorsement ‘unclaimed’.

3. Petitioner submits that immediately after the interim

order was passed by this Court, petitioner joined at Manjeri, the

transferred place, and that, immediately thereupon, by Annexure

VI representation dated 19/6/2010, he had informed the

respondents that he had joined at Manjeri and a copy of Annexure

V interim order was also produced. It is stated that thereafter, he

also submitted Annexure VII reminder dated 1/7/2010 to the

COC No.989/10
:2 :

respondent, furnishing his new address. Therefore, according to

the petitioner, there is no justification for not issuing notice to

him, in his present address.

4. Thus, it is obvious that prior to the passing of the order

dated 9/7/2010, the fact that the petitioner has joined at Manjeri,

the transferred place, was made known to the respondent, and

despite that, the notice issued to the petitioner was addressed

Chirayinkeezhu. It was in such circumstances that the order was

passed without hearing the petitioner.

5. In view of the above, learned Government Pleader

offers that notice will be issued to the parties to the writ petition

afresh and that after hearing them, respondents will pass fresh

orders in the matter.

6. Now that the learned Government Pleader has made

this offer, this contempt petition is closed leaving it open to the

respondents to pass fresh orders in the matter after issuing notice

to the parties.

Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the

respondents for complying with the submission made by the

COC No.989/10
:3 :

learned Government Pleader. Orders shall be passed at any rate

within 4 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp