Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 31635
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Hassainar – Appellant
Versus
Seena H – Respondent
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1362 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nirmal V Nair
For the Respondents: Millu Dandapani
A contempt proceeding is not maintainable when the respondent has substantially complied with the court's directions by passing a consequential order, leaving the petitioner to seek separate legal remedies for any subsequent grievances.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a contempt of court case, alleging non-compliance with the directions issued by the High Court in a prior writ petition judgment. The court had previously ordered the municipality to comply with a tribunal order and process specific representations after providing a hearing, noting the municipality could unlock the building but not authorize business activity without proper licensing. The core issue addressed was whether the issuance of a subsequent order by the respondent constituted satisfaction of the original court directive. The court observed that the respondent had indeed passed an order—Annexure A3—in consequence of the initial judgment, thereby addressing the grievance, and that any failure to take further consequential steps did not amount to contempt by the respondent. Finding no evidence of contempt, the court concluded by closing the proceedings while granting liberty to the petitioner to initiate fresh legal action if a new cause of action or grievance exists.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court finds no contempt where the respondent has issued a consequential order in compliance with previous directions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT
The above contempt case is filed alleging violation of the directions in Annexure A1 judgment. It would better to extract the relevant portion of the directions in Annexure A1 judgment;
“1. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to comply the directions in Ext.P29 order passed by the Tribunal, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 6th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
2. The 1st and 2nd respondents will also consider Ext.P31, P32 and P33 in accordance with the law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 6th respondent during the above period itself.
3. The Municipality will unlock the building. But I make it clear that no business shall be conducted in the building without getting licence/permission from the Municipality.” [SIC]
2. Now an order is passed consequent to Annexure A1 judgment as evident by Annexure A3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, no consequential steps are taken. If that be the case, there is no contempt in this case. If there is any fresh cause of action to the petitioner, the same is free to agitate separately.
In the light of Annexure A3, there is no contempt. Hence, the contempt case is closed, granting liberty to the petitioner to do the needful, in accordance with law.
