Concluding this contempt petition, the Court noted the Respondent had interviewed as directed. No prohibition existed regarding the rank list, which was stayed by order. The Court rejected the contempt case, holding no cognizance was warranted.
Contempt case rejected; no cognizance taken.
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
THURSDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2007 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1929
Con.Case(C).No. 141 of 2007(S)
ARISING FROM THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1884/2006 Dated 14/11/2006
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN WA:
BY ADV. SRI.P.T.DINESH
RESPONDENT: APPELLANT IN WA:
P SIVAJADAS,SECRETARY,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.
.................................................................................. CONTEMPT CASE (C)No. 141 OF 2007
...................................................................................
Dated this the 21st June, 2007
J U D G M E N T
H.L. Dattu, C.J.:
In order to take cognizance of the contempt petition filed, the parties, who have approached this court, should sufficiently prove that there was contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents. In the alternative, they should prove that there is wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this court .
CONTEMPT CASE (C)No. 141 OF 2007
2
and directions issued by this court. In so far as the publication of the rank list to the advertised post, in our opinion, since there was no prohibition by this court, prohibiting the respondent from publishing the rank list , it cannot be said that the respondent has committed an act of contempt and thereby to initiate proceedings against the respondent under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Even otherwise also, the respondent, being aggrieved by the interim orders issued by this court, has already filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and the same is pending for consideration. That apart, the rank list published by the respondent has been stayed by this court.
In view of all these, in our opinion, the cognizance of this Contempt Case need not be taken up. Accordingly, the Contempt case requires to be rejected and it is rejected. It is made clear that any of the observations made by us, is only for the disposal of this Contempt case.
H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE.
lk/DK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Kerala Public Service Commission acted in contempt by failing to interview petitioners as directed and by publishing a rank list.
Whether the publication of a rank list constitutes contempt of court when no prohibition was issued by the court.
Susmitha P. Mallaya
Binumol K.
P Sivajadas
H.L. Dattu
K.T. Sankaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
