In this contempt case, the court rejected the petitioner's claim of compulsion regarding the acceptance of a bill discounting scheme. The judge held that since the petitioner voluntarily consented to the mode of payment, no contempt was committed.
The contempt of court case is dismissed as no wilful disobedience to the court order was made out.
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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/28TH MAGHA, 1937
Con.Case(C).No. 1856 of 2015 (S)
------------------------------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 28548/2015 DATED 29-10-2015)
PETITIONER :
P.A.ISAAC, S/O.ABRAHAM, AGED 67 YEARS, P.W.D.CONTRACTOR, BHAGAVATHKUZHY HOUSE, NIRANAM POST, THIRUVALLA- 689 630.
BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN
SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
RESPONDENT(S):
1. A.P.M.MUHAMMED HANEESH,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2. SUDHA.S.,
3. PENNAMMA M.,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-02-2016, THE COURT ON 17-02-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
COC.NO.1856/2015
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
| ANNEX A | COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.28548 OF 2015 DATED THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015. |
|---|---|
| ANNEX B | COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY |
| ANNEX C | COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(P) NO.13/2015/FIN DATED 12/1/2015. |
| ANNEX D | COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT) NO.10790/2015/FIN DATED 11/12/2015. |
| ANNEX E | COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH FEDERAL BANK. |
| ANNEX F | COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH FEDERAL BANK |
| ANNEX G | COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/12/2015 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDINGS DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT |
| ANNEX H | COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 29/1/2016 ISSUED BY THE MANNAR BRANCH OF FEDERAL BANK. |
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
C.O.(C).No.1856/2015
Dated this the 17th Day of February, 2016
J U D G M E N T
This Court disposed of W.P.(C).No.28548/2015 by judgment
dated 29/10/2015 directing the Government to release the bill
amount to the petitioner within a period of one month. Thereafter,
the bill was settled under the bill discounting scheme. The petitioner
has also given consent for discounting the bill. The consent was
given on 22/12/2015. The petitioner alleges non compliance of the
directions in the judgment stating that he was forced to accept bill
amount in terms of the bill discounting scheme.
on 15/12/2015. Pending the contempt of court case, the petitioner
W.P.(C).No.1856/2015
-:2:-
gave consent under the bill discounting scheme. Annexures-[E] and
[F] agreements for bill discounting under ABP Limit, produced along
with I.A.No.54/2016 evidence the same. The petitioner could have
brought it to the notice of this Court before signing the above consent letters. After having accepted the bill under the bill discounting scheme, it is not proper for the petitioner to contend now that he was compelled to give consent. It is also to be noted that the direction of this Court was only to release the bill amount to
the petitioner. The above direction has been complied with by releasing the amount, though, under the bill discounting scheme.
The petitioner also have consented to such mode. A contempt would
arise only when there is a wilful disobedience to the order of this
Court.
W.P.(C).No.1856/2015
-:3:-
out, as alleged by the petitioner, against the respondents.
Accordingly, the contempt of court case is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
ms
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner who willingly consented to the bill discounting scheme after the court order can plead compulsion to file for contempt.
Whether the non-release of funds via the court-sanctioned bill discounting scheme constitutes wilful disobedience.
P.A.ISAAC
A.P.M.MUHAMMED HANEESH
SUDHA.S.
PENNAMMA M.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court