Petitioner challenged the dismissal of a previous petition as contempt for relying on a government decision subsequently cancelled by the State. Court rejected the contempt case.
Contempt case rejected and dismissed.
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 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1456 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22769/2008 Dated 29/07/2008
PETITIONER:
ARUN GILBERT.G, S/O. GILBERT, ANU BHAVAN, UCHAKADA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVIKUMAR
RESPONDENT:
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
Contempt Case (C) No. 1456 of 2008 (S)
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Annexure A judgment was issued on 29-7-2008 on the premise that the proceedings referred to therein as Exhibit P5 had become final. A reading of Annexure B, which is made the foundation to this Contempt of Court Case, showns that on 25-07-2008 the Director of Public Instructions, in short “DPI”, has addressed a D.O. Letter to the Government and on the basis of that, the Government have cancelled Exhibit P5 decision on the ground that the issuance of Exhibit P5 decision was due to the misrepresentation of facts. Accordingly, the Government has recalled that order and directed the DPI to examine the case in detail afresh and issue orders at the earliest. This, in no manner, leads to any contempt or disobedience or affront to the directions contained in Annexure A judgment. This Contempt of Court Case, therefore, fails and it is accordingly rejected, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner for relief before the DPI following Annexure B.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
skr/15/10
ARUN GILBERT.G
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
