Disposed

Sivasankaran.P. v. K. Chandran

Kerala HC17 Oct 2012Con.Case(C)/1168/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil contempt case regarding cancellation of grade promotions for Executive Officers under the Malabar Devaswom Board, the court observed that a government order dated 1.10.2012 granted the promotions. Finding it unnecessary to proceed with the contempt charge, the court closed the cases.

What did the court decide?

Contempt of Court Cases closed; no order to proceed with alleged offence.

Sivasankaran.P. Vs K. Chandran — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/25TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1168 of 2012 (S) IN WPC/32931/2010 --------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.32931/2010 DATED 31-10-2011

¶6

PETITIONERS/2ND TO 6TH PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. SIVASANKARAN.P., AGED 44 YEARS

¶8

MANAGER, PRIYANAMPATTA BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM

¶9

KATTUKULAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

2. K.K.RAGHUNATHAN

¶11

EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶12

SREE VAYILLIAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, PERUVAMP

¶13

PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

3. ANIL G.

¶15

MANAGER, PATINJARE MADOM DEVASWOM, PATTAMBI PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶16

4. ESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI

¶17

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KAKKOTH BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM

¶18

KOTUMTHIRAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶19

5. MALABAR DEVASWOM EXECUTIVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

¶20

(REG.NO. G.O.R.T. 635/79/27-10-1979)

¶21

REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT AJITH PARAMBATH

¶22

PARAMBATH HOUSE, NUT STREET P.O., VATAKARA-4

¶23

KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶24

BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAGOPALAN

¶25

ESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3:

¶26

K. CHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANJIPALAM P.O. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673001.

¶27

R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWAOM

¶28

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-10-2012, ALONG WITH COC. 1173/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

Con.Case(C).No. 1168 of 2012 (S) IN WPC/32931/2010

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶32

ANNEXURE 1: CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2011 IN W.P.C. NO. 32931 OF 2010 N

¶33

ANNEXURE II: THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 07.09.2011

¶34

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:

¶35

ANNEXURE R1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.04.2012

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

dlk

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶40

¶41

C.C.(C) No.1168 OF 2012 IN W.P.(C) No. 32931 OF 2010 & C.C.(C)No.1173 OF 2012 IN W.P.(C)No.33533 OF 2010

¶42

¶43

Dated this the 17^th day of October , 2012

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

The writ petitions were filed by the petitioners concerned, who are working as Executive Officers under the Malabar Devaswom Board, being aggrieved of the cancellation of the grade promotion already given to them with effect from 8.12.2009. When the writ petitions came up for consideration before this Court, it was submitted from the part of the Devaswom that the Devaswom had taken a decision to restore the grade promotion to the petitioners and that steps were being taken to implement the decision taken in this regard on 7.9.2011. It was accordingly that the writ petitions were disposed of, directing the Commissioner to pass appropriate orders within three weeks.

¶46

The petitioners have approached this Court alleging wilful

¶47

disobedience of the undertaking, which according to them amounts to

¶48

CCC.Nos.1168 & 1173 of 2012 2

¶49

the offence of Contempt of Court and is liable to be proceeded against. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents have entered appearance and filed an affidavit pointing out that, all earnest efforts were taken to give effect to the verdict passed based on the undertaking made before this Court. It is also stated that the proceedings were finalised after completing the formalities and an order bearing No.H7-1357/10/MDB dated 11.04.2012 was passed by the Commissioner, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure R1, whereby the petitioners have been ordered to be given the relief and that it has been taken up before the Government for approval and further steps.

¶50

Today, when the matter is taken up for further consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom submits that, the issue was considered by the Government and G.O.No.5630/2012/RD dated 1.10.2012 was issued, whereby grade promotions have been granted to the Executive Officers and that the stipulation that test qualification ought to have been there for granting the promotion, has been done away with or rather exempted. A copy of

¶51

CCC.Nos.1168 & 1173 of 2012 3

¶52

the said order has been produced before this Court for perusal.

¶53

In the said circumstances, this Court finds that it is not necessary to proceed with the alleged offence of contempt. If the concerned parties are aggrieved of the orders now passed, it is open for them to have it subjected to challenge by way of other appropriate proceedings. The Contempt of Court Cases are closed accordingly.

¶54

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶55

sv.

¶56

CCC.Nos.1168 & 1173 of 2012 4

Sivasankaran.P. v. K. Chandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivasankaran.P. v. K. Chandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulaikha P.A. Vs State of Kerala

Surendran P.A Vs M/S. Iti Limited

Manager, Auzillium School, Varakkad, Vs State

Intelligence Officer(Ib) Vs B.a.Shanavas

C.Chandran Vs Assistant Security Commissioner

M.K.Raveendran Vs Guruvayoor Devaswom