Division Bench examined if the respondent wilfully disobeyed interim orders directing submission of a draft agreement without a fixed time limit. Finding the delay explained and compliance achieved, the Court dropped the contempt proceedings.
Contempt proceedings dropped; no directions framed against the contemnor.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
MONDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2007 / 18TH ASHADHA 1929
Con.Case(C).No. 14 of 2007(S)
ORDER IN WPC.27538/2005 Dated 23/12/2005
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:
DR.A.K.B. SADHBHAVANA MISSION TRUST, SARADHA HEALTH CENTRE,KOYILANDY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER DR.SANU JOHN KOVOOR, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. K.A. ELIAS.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
ADV. SMT.VAHEEDA BABU
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION:
DR. JANAKIKUTTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.
BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.T. RAVIKUMAR.
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN,J.
Cont. Case (C). NO. 14 OF 2007 S ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 9th July, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.DATTU, C.J .
Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27538 of 2005 is the complainant in this contempt petition. It is the grievance of the complainant that the respondent has disobeyed the interim directions issued by this Court on 25.10.2005 and 23.12.2005. By those interim orders, this Court had directed the respondent herein (second respondent in the Writ Petition) to furnish a draft agreement to the petitioner, but while passing those orders this Court has not fixed any time.
Cont.Case (C). NO. 14 of 2007
:: 2 ::
passed an order on 26.2.2007, prima facie coming to the conclusion that the respondent in the contempt petition has disobeyed the interim directions issued by this Court.
“This is a Review Petition, seeking review of an order passed by this Court, referring the contempt application to the Division Bench for further proceedings. No rule has been brought to the notice of this Court, which will enable this Court to pass further orders in a matter, which has already been referred to the Division Bench. But, the learned counsel for the review petitioner relies on Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to sustain this petition. I think, since I have already referred the matter to the Division Bench and it is pending before the Division Bench for consideration, it is not proper for this court to recall or modify that order. Further, the review petitioner can place all her contentions before the Division Bench. Accordingly, this R.P is dismissed as not maintainable.”
7.Learned Government Pleader appearing for the contemnor would submit that though there was some delay in furnishing the draft agreement as directed by this Court on 25.10.2005 and 23.12.2005, the same has
Cont.Case (C). NO. 14 of 2007
:: 3 ::
been done on 8.2.2007 after obtaining appropriate orders and directions from the State Government. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the contemnor has not either deliberately or wilfully disobeyed the directions issued by this Court.
Cont.Case (C). NO. 14 of 2007
:: 4 ::
Without coming to the aforesaid conclusion, this Court is not expected to frame any charges against the contemnor. Secondly, this Court is not expected to be too sensitive in a matter of this nature.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU) Chief Justice
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge
ahz/DK.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent deliberately and wilfully disobeyed interim directions to furnish a draft agreement.
Whether contempt proceedings should proceed or be dropped given no time limit was fixed.
Dr.A.K.B. Sadbhavana Mission Trust
Dr. Janakikutty
H.L. Dattu
K.T. Sankaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
