Disposed

U.v.Kumaran v. K.Chandran

Kerala HC19 Oct 2012Con.Case(C)/1296/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt proceeding, the Court found that the respondents had implemented the undertaking given in an earlier writ petition by effecting grade promotions through a Government order. Finding no further need to proceed with the contempt offence, the Court closed the contempt case and advised aggrieved parties to challenge the Government order through appropriate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The contempt of court case is closed with no further proceedings warranted; the undertaking was found to have been complied with.

U.v.Kumaran 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

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/27TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1296 of 2012 (S) IN WPC/33925/2010 --------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.33925/2010 DATED 31-10-2011

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

U.V.KUMARAN, S/O, CHOYI, AGED 52 YEARS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PIZHARIKAVU DEVASWOM, KOLLAM KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

K.V.NARAYANAN, S/O.SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 40 YEARS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AZHAKODI DEVI TEMPLE, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

T.T.VINODAN, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR AGED 47 YEARS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BALUSSERY KOTTA CHALA DEVASWOM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

P.DEVADASAN, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN NAMBISAN, AGED 51 YEARS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VARIMKODE DEVASWOM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

K.CHANDRAN, AGED 51 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME (NOT KNOWN), COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM P.O. KOZHIKODE-673006.

¶14

R3- BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN,SC,MALABAR DEVA

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶17

¶18

Cont. Case Civil No.1296 of 2012 in W.P.(C).No.33925 of 2010 and connected cases

¶19

- - - - Dated this the 19^th day of October , 2012

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The writ petitions were filed by the petitioners concerned, who

¶22

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 1.12.2009. When the matter 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.

¶23

The petitioners have approached this Court alleging wilful disobedience of the undertaking, which according to them amounts to an office of contempt of Court and is liable to be proceeded against.

¶24

C.O.C. No.1296 of 2012 -2-

¶25

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, 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 reliefs and that it has been taken up before the Government for approval and further steps.

¶26

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, who has issued G.O.No.5630/2012/RD, dated 1.10.2012, 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 run away with or rather exempted. A copy of the said order has been produced before this Court for perusal. In the said

¶27

C.O.C. No.1296 of 2012 -3-

¶28

circumstances, this Court finds that it is not a fit case for proceeding with the offence of contempt and that the respondents have given effect to the undertaking given before this Court. 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. NO further proceedings are warranted and the Contempt of Court Case is closed accordingly.

¶29

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶30

kp.

U.v.Kumaran v. K.Chandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.v.Kumaran 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

S.Suchesh Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Maya Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith.B Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

K.Subhadra Vs R.K.Singh

Manager, Puttekkad a.M.L.P.School Vs P.Sasidharan

M.Mohanan Vs the Executive Officer, Thrikkannad Tryambakeshwara Temple