The Kerala High Court dismissed a contempt petition. The petitioner alleged non-compliance with a prior writ judgment directing the respondent to decide a matter within three months. The court held that the petitioner could appropriately challenge the subsequent order on merits, thereby closing the contempt proceeding.
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 S.SIRI JAGAN
MONDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2010 / 26TH ASWINA 1932
Con.Case(C).No. 1229 of 2010(S)
--------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36530/2009 Dated 14/06/2010
PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS IN THE WPC.
----------------------------------------------------
1. SAJAY JOSEPH, EDAMATTOM, KAMVANCHAL, AGE 37, S/O. JOSEPG,KANNUR-670 571.
2. JOSE JAMES, PUTHENPARA, VAYATTU PARAMBA, AGE 36, S/O. JAMES, KANNUR-670 582.
BY ADVS. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.M.A.FIROZ
RESPONDENT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT
------------------------------------------
SRI. R.S.GUJRAL, IAS, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SVS/
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
Cont. Case (C) NO. 1229 OF 2010
Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner complains of non compliance with the directions in Annexure VII judgment. The direction reads therein
thus:-
“In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and take a final decision in the matter and communicate the same to the petitioner and others concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. While doing so, the 1st respondent shall consider the matter in accordance with Ext.P11 instructions issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, to various Chief Secretaries of the State Governments and Chief Engineers of the States dealing with national highways and centrally sponsored schemes.”
Admittedly, Annexure VIII order has been passed pursuant to the said direction. The petitioner's contention is that Annexure VIII order is not in compliance with Annexure VII judgment, in so far as the National Highway Authority has recommended the case of the petitioner. Whether the National Highway Authority has recommended the case of the petitioner or not, the Government of India is not bound to accept the recommendation and they can pass an independent order, which has been done in this case. If
2
Cont. Case (C) NO. 1229 OF 2010
that order is wrong, according to the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to challenge Annexure VIII appropriately. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Annexure VIII order appropriately, this Contempt Case is closed.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE.
mns
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief in a contempt proceeding for alleged non-compliance with a prior direction.
Whether the opportunity to challenge the substance of the impugned order appropriately is sufficient to close the contempt case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sajay Joseph
Jose James
R.S.Gujral
S.SirI Jagan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
