Dismissed

P. Madhavan v. Valsan Madathil

Kerala HC6 Mar 2015Con.Case(C)/148/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner in a contempt case alleged the respondent manager illegally retained school records instead of complying with a prior order to assist the petitioner's functions. The court found no wilful disobedience as records were with the investigating agency for an ongoing enquiry and dismissed the case.

What did the court decide?

None. The contempt case is dismissed. It is left open for the petitioner to take other remedial measures if aggrieved.

P. Madhavan Vs Valsan Madathil — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/15TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

¶6

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶7

P. MADHAVAN, HEADMASTER, ELAYAVOOR CENTRAL L.P.SCHOOL, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.V.V.KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT ELAYAVOOR, P.O.MUNDAYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH

¶9

RESPONDENT/4TH RESPONDENT:

¶10

VALSAN MADATHIL, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.A.V.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, MANAGER, VARAM UP SCHOOL & ELAYAVOOR CENTRAL L.P.SCHOOL, RESIDING AT MATATHIL HOUSE, CHOWA PO, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 006.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA

¶12

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

APPENDIX IN COC 148/2015

¶14

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶15

ANNEXURE 1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.10.2014 IN WPC 20210/2014

¶16

ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.12.2014 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶17

ANNEUXRE 3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.1.2015 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶18

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

ANNEXURE-R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.6.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶20

ANNEXURE-R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICE DATED 19.6.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶21

ANNEXURE-R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 1.7.2014 FILED BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE TRIVANDRUM WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶22

ANNEXURE-R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR OF THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KANNUR

¶23

/TRUE COPY/

¶24

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶25

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶26

Con. Case(C)No.148 of 2015 S

¶27

Dated this the 6^th day of March, 2015

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Initially aggrieved by the action of the respondent, the Manager of Elayavoor Central L.P.School, Kannur District in placing the petitioner under suspension, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.20210/2014 and invited Annexure-1 judgment dated 09.10.2014. While allowing the writ petition, this Court issued the following direction:

¶30

“In the facts and circumstances, Exhibit P11 passed by the fifth additional respondent is set aside; further the consequential order passed in Exhibit P11(a) is also set aside, with a direction to the fourth respondent to allow the petitioner to function as the Headmaster. It is, however, made clear that, if any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and pending, or yet to be initiated, the reinstatement of the petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of those proceedings. The petitioner, under these circumstances, shall be paid salary and allowances from the 16^th day of his original suspension, for he is deemed to have been functioning as the Headmaster from the said date.”

¶31

COC 148/15

¶32

¶33

At a later point of time, the petitioner filed R.P.No. 976/2014 seeking modification of the judgment to the extent that the petitioner be paid salary for the period he was under suspension, inclusive of the initial fifteen days statutory period. The said review petition was allowed on 21.02.2015.

¶34

Presently, the petitioner has come up with the contempt case, alleging that though this Court has issued a categoric direction to the respondent to permit the petitioner to discharge his functions as the Headmaster, the respondent has stultified the judicial directive by withholding certain documents which he had taken away when the petitioner had been on leave even prior to his suspension.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure-4 to lay emphasis that the issue was taken before the Government which in turn issued the

¶36

COC 148/15

¶37

¶38

directive to the respondent to handover the school records 'illegally retained' by him.

¶39

In sum and substance, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the direction of this Court in Annexure-1 judgment does not amount to have been fully complied with unless the respondent makes available all the records, for an effective discharge of petitioner's functions as Headmaster.

¶40

In tune with the averments made in the counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously contended that the records are made available to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kannur, as part of the on going enquiry against the petitioner, as is evident from Exhibit R1(d).

¶41

Though the learned counsel for the respondent has also urged various issues, I do not propose to go into the merits of any of them. Suffice it to say, if at all there is

¶42

COC 148/15

¶43

¶44

any controversy whether the records have been illegally retained by the respondent or handed over to an investigating agency as part of an enquiry, as could be seen from Exhibit R1(d), it, in fact, provides, in my considered view, a fresh cause of action for the petitioner. I do not see any wilful disobedience of Annexure-1 judgment by the respondent.

¶45

In the facts and circumstances, the contempt case stands dismissed; it is left open for the petitioner to take other remedial measures if he is still aggrieved by the issue raised in this contempt case.

¶46

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶47

tkv

P. Madhavan v. Valsan Madathil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Madhavan v. Valsan Madathil

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

D.Dileepkumar Vs Antony Chacko

Shanil P.Y Vs State of Kerala

Smitha Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

T.V. Moideen Vs Chittur - Thathamangalam Municipality

Jamaludheen P.H Vs Thalikkulam Grama Panchayat

Joshy P.K. Vs Corporation of Kochi