Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Jayakumar.N. vs Anitha on 6 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con.Case(C).No. 808 of 2010(S)


1. JAYAKUMAR.N., S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ANITHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.S.KALKURA

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :06/08/2010

 O R D E R
                    P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
                  ---------------------------
                    Cont. Case (C) No.808 of 2010-S
                  ----------------------------
               Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010.

                           J U D G M E N T

This case has been filed by the petitioner, alleging

contumacious act on the part of the respondent/contemnor, stating

that the interim order dated 14.6.2010 passed by this Court in W.P

(C) No.18287 of 2010, directing to maintain `status quo’, was not

complied with and that the line was drawn and connection was

provided to the beneficiary, which hence is sought to be acted upon.

2. The respondent has filed an affidavit, along with a

document produced as Ext.R1(a), pointing out that the description

of the third respondent, in the cause title of the Writ Petition is quite

wrong. It is also stated that the respondent/contemnor was neither

informed as to the existence of the interim order, nor was she

available in the office on the relevant date or at the site, as

contended by the petitioner, which is very much discernible from

the office proceedings and records. It is also pointed out that there

is no such Assistant Engineer in the Electrical Sub Division,

Kesavadasapuram shown as the third respondent and the party

Cont. Case (C) No.808 of 2010-S 2

should have been either the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical

Sub Division, Kesavadasapuram or the Assistant Engineer, Electrical

Section, Kesavadasapuram.

3. It is stated in para 12 of the said counter affidavit that,

eventhough the learned standing counsel had informed the position

to the office of the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section,

Kesavadasapuram about the interim order, the subject matter was

not within his jurisdiction of the said officer and hence he was

unable to comply with the interim order. It was only on 15.6.2010

that the respondent could contact the office of the standing counsel

and by that time, the line had already been drawn and connection

was effected.

4. Going by the materials on record, this Court finds that

no contumacious act is made out. No further action needs to be

pursued in the Contempt of Court Case.

The Contempt of Court Case is closed.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE

ab


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

16 queries in 0.117 seconds.