Dismissed

Sabu Augustine v. Deputy Director of Collegiate Education

Kerala HC11 Sept 2013Con.Case(C)/773/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition alleging disobedience of a judgment was dismissed by the High Court of Kerala for non-joinder of the necessary respondent, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, who was not impleaded despite representations by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition for contempt with the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam impleaded as the respondent.

Sabu Augustine Vs Deputy Director of Collegiate Education — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/20TH BHADRA, 1935

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 773 of 2013 (S) IN WP(C).27280/2012

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27280/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 07-01-2013

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SABU AUGUSTINE, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.O.M.AUGUSTINE, LECTURER SENIOR GRADE MARIAN COLLEGE, KUTTIKANAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS SRI.I.J.AUGUSTINE SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶11

DR. SYAMALAKUMARI.B AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, NEAR FIRE STATION, YAYASKARAKUNNU, PALACE ROAD KOTTAYAM-686562.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.V ELIAS

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Con.Case(C).No. 773 of 2013 (S) IN WP(C).27280/2012

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES

¶17

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT 07-01-2013 IN W.P.C NO.27280/2012

¶18

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES

¶19

ANNEXURE R1(a) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27-7-2013 SENT FROM THE HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

¶20

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

SMM

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶25

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= C.O.(C)No.773 of 2013 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶26

Dated this the 11^th day of September, 2013

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This Contempt Case is filed alleging that Dr.Syamalakumari B., who is joined as the respondent herein and described as the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam has willfully disobeyed Annexure A1 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.27280 of 2012. This Contempt Case was admitted and urgent notice returnable in ten days was ordered to the respondent on 23.7.2012. The Contempt Case thereafter came up before me on 5.8.2013. On that day, I passed the following the order:-

¶29

"This Contempt Case was admitted and urgent notice returnable in ten days was ordered to the respondent on 23.7.2013. This Court had also directed the Contempt Case to be posted on 5.8.2013. The case has accordingly come up before me today. The Registry has reported that though notice was ordered on 23.7.2013, the petitioner has not so far taken steps and therefore, notice has not been sent to the respondent. The respondent, Sri.T.G.Sarath Chandran, who is presently the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam is present in person, though he is not the person impleaded as the respondent in the Contempt Case. He submitted that he took charge as the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education on 27.6.2013 and that Dr.Syamalakumari B., the respondent in the Contempt Case, is the Principal of a Government College and was only holding charge. In such

¶30

¶31

C.O.(C)No.773 of 2013

¶32

circumstances, as the petitioner has not taken steps to implead the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam and has also not paid the process fee, I am of the opinion that personal appearance of the respondent as also the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam should be dispensed with until further orders.

¶33

2. I accordingly dispense with the personal appearance of the respondent as also the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam until further orders.

¶34

Post after three weeks. In the meanwhile, the petitioner to take steps to implead the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam as a respondent in the Contempt Case."

¶35

Such an order was passed in view of the submission made

¶36

by Sri.T.G.Sarath Chandran, presently the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam who was present in person that he took charge as the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education on 27.6.2013 and that Dr.Syamalakumari B., the respondent in the Contempt Case, is the Principal of a Government College and was only holding charge. I accordingly dispensed with the personal appearance of the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam and directed the petitioner to take steps to implead the the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam as the respondent in the Contempt Case. The petitioner has not so far take steps in that regard though more than a month has passed thereafter. In such circumstances, the Contempt Case is dismissed

¶37

¶38

C.O.(C)No.773 of 2013

¶39

for non-joinder of necessary parties, reserving liberty with the petitioner to file a fresh petition for contempt, if so advised, with proper persons on the party array.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE

/true copy/

P.A. To Judge

vpv

C.O.(C)No.773 of 2013

¶46

¶47

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶48

Dated this the 5^th day of August, 2013

¶49

ORDER

¶50

This Contempt Case was admitted and urgent notice returnable in ten days was ordered to the respondent on 23.7.2013. This Court had also directed the Contempt Case to be posted on 5.8.2013. The case has accordingly come up before me today. The Registry has reported that though notice was ordered on 23.7.2013, the petitioner has not so far taken steps and therefore, notice has not been sent to the respondent. The respondent, Sri.T.G.Sarath Chandran, who is presently the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam is present in person, though he is not the person impleaded as the respondent in the Contempt Case. He submitted that he took charge as the Deputy Director of Collegiate

¶51

¶52

C.O.(C)No.773 of 2013

¶53

Education on 27.6.2013 and that Dr.Syamalakumari B., the respondent in the Contempt Case, is the Principal of a Government College and was only holding charge. In such circumstances, as the petitioner has not taken steps to implead the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam and has also not paid the process fee, I am of the opinion that personal appearance of the respondent as also the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam should be dispensed with until further orders.

¶54

I accordingly dispense with the personal appearance of the respondent as also the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam until further orders.

¶55

Post after three weeks. In the meanwhile, the petitioner to take steps to implead the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam as a respondent in the Contempt Case.

¶56

P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE

¶57

vpv

Sabu Augustine v. Deputy Director of Collegiate Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabu Augustine v. Deputy Director of Collegiate Education

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

Ahamad Kunju Abdul Kadar Vs Pareeth Kunju Vaydan Isha Beevi

Bhaskaran.a Vs Thanka

Sudhakumari S.R. Vs Catholic Syrian Bank

Alex P.Cyriac Vs Hindustan News Print Ltd. & Others

Islamic Cultural and Educational Trust Vs Sarada

Sasidharan Pillai Vs Raghavan Pillai