Dismissed

Bijimol Devassia v. Gnaneswary

Kerala HC4 Aug 2009Con.Case(C)/109/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt petition challenging failure to fill vacancies. The court held that mere disobedience is not contempt unless deliberate. Finding no direction to promote irrespective of norms or vacancies, the court found no willful disobedience. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is dismissed as the court found no willful disobedience of its orders.

Bijimol Devassia Vs Gnaneswary — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931

¶6

Con.Case(C).No. 109 of 2009(S)

¶7

-----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.2166/2008 Dated 05/11/2008 ....................

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

¶10

BIJIMOL DEVASSIA, NOORUPARACHIRA, PULLANGADI P.O., CHAMBAKKULAM, ALAPPUZHA.

¶11

SINDHU.K.NAIR, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, THAKAZHI P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶12

NISHA RAMACHANDRAN, PATHIYANKARA, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

¶16

C.GNANESWARY, AGED 50, W/O.ARUN KUMAR, RESIDING AT TRIVANDRUM, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA.

¶17

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA

¶18

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH,J.

¶20

C.O.C.No.109 of 2009

¶21

Dated this the 4^th day of August, 2009

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

S.R.Bannurmath, C.J.

¶24

Alleging disobedience of the judgment dated 5-11-2008 in W.A.No.2166/2008 and the order dated 3-3-2009 in R.P.No.136/2009 the present contempt petition is filed. It is vehemently contended that though this court directed the respondent to fill up the vacancy which occurred prior to the expiry of the ranked list and as the same has not been complied with as is seen from the statements in the review petition as well as in the affidavits and reply affidavits filed by the parties, there is disobedience of the orders passed and hence the respondent is liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶25

At the outset it is to be noted that under the

¶26

provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and especially having a look into the definition 'civil contempt' it is not mere

¶27

C.O.C.No.109 of 2009

¶28

-:2:-

¶29

disobedience which amounts to civil contempt, but it must be deliberate or willful disobedience.

¶30

After perusing the records and various affidavits and statements filed by the respondent, it is noted that there were only six vacancies which have been filled up from the promotees quota. A perusal of Annexure A3 and the review petition does

¶31

not indicate that this court had directed the authorities of the respondent to promote the petitioners irrespective of the norms and availability or non-availability of the vacancies. In view of the same we do not find any willful disobedience of the order passed by this court and hence the contempt of court case is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

S.R.BANNURMATH, Chief Justice

¶33

KURIAN JOSEPH, Judge

¶34

ahg.

¶35

BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH,J.

¶36

C.O.C.No.109 of 2009

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

4^th August, 2009

Bijimol Devassia v. Gnaneswary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijimol Devassia v. Gnaneswary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.M.Hameedkutty Vs R.K.Jayaraj and Others

Sarala Vs K.N.Kusumakumari & Others

M.K. Jose Vs Managing Director Khrws

Kerala Bus Transport Association, Vs State of Kerala

Devaki Vs Manager,State Bank of India,Ongallur

Union of India Vs K.P.Rathna Latha