In this contempt of court case, petitioners alleged non-compliance with an interim order. The judge found the ambiguity lay in the framing of the interim relief. Concluding it was unjustified to proceed on these facts, the contempt case was closed.
The contempt case is closed.
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.
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SIRI JAGAN
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/10TH MAGHA 1933
COC. No. 1145 of 2011 (S)
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC NO:9260/2011 DATED 24-03-2011)
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C):
1. C.K. SATHIAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. KARUPPANKUTTY, DRIVER, H.G., KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., THRISSUR.
2. M.K. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. KUNJIKANNAN, DRIVER, H.G., KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., THRISSUR (NELLIYAMPATHI ESTATE).
3. P. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. PONNAYYAN, DRIVER, H.G., KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., PUNALOOR, THOLKODU P.O., KOLLAM.
4. M.V. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, DRIVER, H.G., KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., MANANTHAVADY P.O., WAYANAD.
5. JOHNY JOHN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ULAHANNAN, KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., ARANYAKOM, KARAPUZHA, KOTTAYAM.
6. M.V. JUSTIN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. VAVACHAN, KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., ARANYAKOM, KARAPUZHA, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI. D. SREEKUMAR
(CONTD...)
SP
..2..
COC. No. 1145 of 2011 (S)
RESPONDENT/4TH RESPONDENT:
AMARNATH SHETTY IPS, AGED 55 YEARS (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, ARANYAKOM, KARAPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 003.
BY SRI. V.G. ARUN, S.C. BY SRI. T.R. HARIKUMAR, S.C.
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SP
COC. No. 1145 of 2011 (S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:-
| ANNX. 1 | - COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 24/03/2011 IN W.P.(C) NO: 9290/2011(F) OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. |
|---|---|
| ANNX. 2 | - COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 08/08/2011. |
| ANNX. 3 | - COPY OF THE SALARY BILL GRANTING HIGHER MONETARY BENEFITS TO THE PARTY RESPONDENTS. |
| ANNX. 4 | - COPY OF THE ORDER NO:E1-5389/99/VOL.IX (CASE FILE) DATED 25/08/2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. |
| ANNX. 5 | - COPY OF LEGAL OPINION OF ADV. V.G ARUN, STANDING COUNSEL OF CORPORATION DATED 04/07/2011. |
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNX. R1(A) - COPY OF THE ORDER NO:E1-5389/99 DATED 21/07/2011.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
SP
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Cont. Case (C) No. 1145 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 30th day of January, 2012.
The petitioners complain of non-compliance with Annexure I interim order, which reads thus:
“Admit.
The learned standing counsel takes notice on behalf of the 1st respondent. The learned Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Issue notice by speed post to respondents 3 and 4.
There would be an interim order as prayed for.”
The operative portion of the order sought to be stayed reads thus:
“All these thirteen employees have completed more than 25 years of service and are working in sanctioned posts. They are also qualified to be appointed to the post. Having examined the proposal of Managing Director, KFDC in detail, Government are pleased to regularise the services of the above thirteen daily waged employees subject to the condition that their past service will be counted for service benefits only, without any arrears of salary and other financial benefits to them.”
The petitioners submit that although the latter portion, namely, the condition that their past service will be counted for service benefits only without any arrears of salary and other financial benefits to them, has been stayed as per Annexure I order, the persons were given higher salary and other benefits.
Cont. Case (C) No. 1145 of 2011 -: 2 :-
them, they have not violated the interim order and has passed the said order after obtaining legal advice.
I have gone through the order impugned in the writ petition, Annexture I interim order and Annexure R1(a) order. I am of opinion that the confusion occurred only because of the ambiguous framing of the interim relief. That being so, I will not be justified in proceeding with this contempt case on such facts. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to proceed further in this contempt case. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned judge should proceed further in the contempt case given the ambiguity in the interim order consultation and framing of the interim relief.
C.K. SATHIAN
M.K. BALAKRISHNAN
P. VIJAYAKUMAR
M.V. RAVEENDRAN
JOHNY JOHN
M.V. JUSTIN
S. SIRI JAGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
