Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 51128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.359 OF 2017(S) IN WP(C). 27867/2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 27867/2016 DATED 28-10-2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER/S: K. SREEKUMAR S/O. LATE KRISHNAN, AGED 65 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, QUILON CONSULTING ENGINEERS,GOKULAM, 2ND FLOOR, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR RESPONDENTs/1st AND 4TH RESPONDENTS: K.R.JYOTHILAL AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
SHEELA THOMAS (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM – 695 001.
K.V.MARTHANDAN AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,CHIEF ENGINEER (BOT PROJECTS),KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION (KTDFC),6TH FLOOR, TRANS TOWERS,VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 006.
R1 BY SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL K.R.SC KTDFC R3 BY SRI. T.P. SAJAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Dated this the 26 th day of February, 2021.
JUDGMENT
This Contempt Case is filed complaining that the directives contained in the judgment dated 28.10.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 27867 of 2016 is not complied with.
2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate affidavits explaining the circumstances as to why they did not make the payment due to the petitioner.
3. However, today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Senior Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation (KTDFC) submitted that on 30.03.2017, an amount of Rs.42,10,253/- was paid to the petitioner, which was the admitted amount according to the KTDFC. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a dispute with respect to the admitted amount.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. On going through the judgment, I find that while the judgment was rendered, the dispute raised by the KTDFC was taken into account and recorded that according to the KTDFC, the amount due was only Rs. 43,82,277/-. Taking note of the above said fact also, direction was issued to the respondents to pay the admitted amount due, to the petitioner.
5 The petitioner had a case that an amount of
Rs.64,55,262/- is due to him. However, when the direction was issued, the undisputed figure pointed out by the KTDFC as above was noted by this Court. So also, I am conscious of the fact that in a contempt proceeding, adjudication with respect to the actual amount due to the petitioner is not possible to be undertaken.
6 Taking into account the fact that substantial payments as above were made by the respondents and which figure, according to the respondents, is the admitted amount due to the petitioner, I do not think anything survives to be considered in this Contempt Case. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to make any claims against the respondents before the appropriate forum, if aggrieved and advised so.
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv
