A contempt petition was filed alleging the District Educational Officer disobeyed orders directing salary payment. The bench held that the order did not contain a positive direction, thus not justifying contempt charges. The petition was rejected.
The contempt petition is rejected as the impugned order lacked a positive direction.
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 WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2007 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 796 of 2007(S) -----------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN WA.1932/2006 Dated 20/03/2007 ....................
PETITIONER/PETITIONER
---------------------------JUBY THOMAS, VALLIKKATTIL HOUSE, W/O. REV. FR. MANOJ, AGED 26 YEARS, MATTUKATTA, AYYAPPANKOVIL, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.M.R.ANISON SRI.T.R.RAJESH
RESPONDENT: 3RD RESPONDENT
SMT. M.I.SARAMMA, AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, W/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.
BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER MR.M.R.SABU
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.
Cont.Case (c) No.796 of 2007 ------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 6th day of June, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
Alleging that the respondent in this contempt petition has disobeyed wilfully and deliberately the orders and directions issued by this Court in I.A.No.112 of 2007 in W.A.No.1932 of 2006, the appellant in the writ appeal has filed this contempt petition.
20th March, 2007 in I.A.No.112 of 2007. The Court has observed as under:
“Further, we make it clear that in case the salary is paid, that will not confer a better right to the petitioner.”
Cont.Case © No.796/2007
2
a direction it cannot be said that the respondent has committed an act of contempt in not complying with the orders and directions issued by this Court. In this view of the matter, we decline to take cognizance of this contempt petition. Accordingly it requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
( H.L.DATTU)
vns/DK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should take cognizance of a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of an order that lacked a positive direction.
Whether an observation by the court that salary payment does not confer a better right amounts to a binding mandatory order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Juby Thomas
M.I.Saramma
H.L.Dattu
K.T.Sankaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
