In a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a restitution order, the High Court held the respondent was not guilty of contempt as the rejection reasons differed from the challenged order. The contempt case was dismissed without prejudice.
Contempt case dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to challenge the rejected order.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/16TH BHADRA, 1938
Con.Case(C).No. 1522 of 2016 (S) IN WP(C).11764/2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11764/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 23.11.2015
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER.:
SANTHI VIJAYAKUMAR W/O. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 62 YEARS, SANTHI, THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI- 21.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT.:
DR.D.C. JOSHI
AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER DIRECTOR (CGHS), DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICE NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110001.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No. 1522 of 2016 (S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS
A1-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 4.1.2012 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT A2-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 11764/2012 DT 23.11.2015 A3-TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER A4-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT DT 16.8.2016 WITH ANNEXURE
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
NIL
TRUE COPY
SKS
P.A TO JUDGE
K.HARILAL, J.
....................................................
Cont.Case (C)No.1522 of 2016
..................................................... Dated this the 7th day of September, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the petitioner in WP(C)No.11764/12 which was disposed of on 23.11.2015 directing the first respondent to reconsider the issue, in view of the observations made in the judgment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment.
2
Cont.Case (C)No.1522 of 2016
Copies of the two judgments are enclosed. In view of the above judgments, the reimbursement claim of late Sri.K.Chandrasekharan is not maintainable as Sri.K.Chandrasekharan ceased to be a member of the Rajya Sabha on 2.5.1976 and did not renew his card after its expiry on 31.12.2005 till 14.5.2006 i.e. the grace period in which he could become a member of the scheme for claiming the reimbursement as per rules. Hence, the reimbursement claim of late Sri.K. Chandrasekharan is regretted.
that the claim was rejected in the light of the proposition
3
Cont.Case (C)No.1522 of 2016
laid down by the Apex Court in the two decisions referred to in the said order. Further this Court finds that the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court were not referred to in Annexure A1 order. Therefore it cannot be said that Annexure A4 order was passed reiterating the reasons stated in Annexure A1 order. Even though, in Annexure A4, it is stated that the deceased Sri.K.Chandrasekharan has not renewed the card after its expiry on 31.12.2005 till 14.5.2006 that was not a ground whereby the claim was rejected.
In the above analysis, I find that the respondent cannot be prosecuted for Contempt of Court. Hence this contempt of court case will stand dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Annexure A4 order dated 16.8.2016.
K.HARILAL, JUDGE
sks/8/9/2016
4
Cont.Case (C)No.1522 of 2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for contempt of court for alleged non-compliance with the court's direction.
Whether the respondent's order reiterating grounds not stated in the earlier order amounts to willful disobedience of the court's directive.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Santhi Vijayakumar
Dr. D.C. Joshi
K. Harilal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
