Disposed

Dr. A.K.B Sadbhavana Mission Trust v. B. Srinivas I.A.S

Kerala HC13 Mar 2018Con.Case(C)/169/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, the petitioner challenged non-compliance with directions to start a pharmacy course. The Court clarified the petitioner could start immediately based on a fresh Government Order, deferring challenges to conditions until they are framed.

What did the court decide?

Case closed; petitioner permitted to start course; right to challenge conditions preserved for future.

Dr. A.K.B Sadbhavana Mission Trust Vs B. Srinivas… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1939 Con.Case(C).No. 169 of 2018 IN WA. 969/2017

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 969/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10-07-2017

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

DR. A.K.B SADBHAVANA MISSION TRUST MODAKKALLUR POST, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, T.K.CHOYIKUTTY, AGED 84 YEARS, S/O.LATE T.K.KELUKUTTY, MODAKKALLUR POST, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE-673 321.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.E.M.ABDUL KHADER SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY) SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN SMT.AMRIN FATHIMA SRI.RAHUL ROY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

B. SRINIVAS I.A.S AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI V TEK CHAND

¶12

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Con.Case(C).No. 169 of 2018 (S) IN WA.969/2017

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶16

ANNEXURE A1:	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/03/2017 IN W.P.(C) NO.20803/2017 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANNEXURE A2:	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/07/2017 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.A.NO.969/2017.
ANNEXURE A3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/07/2017 FORWARDING THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.07.2017 IN W.A.NO.969/2017 TO THE RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/11/2017 IN IA NO.1118/201 IN W.A.NO.969/2017
ANNEXURE A5:	TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE ORDER DATED 26.02.2007 IN CONTEMPT CASE (c) NO.14/2007
ANNEXURE A6:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.07.2007 IN CONTEMPT CASE (C) NO.1034/2007
ANNEXURE A7:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.07.2015 IN CONTEMPT CASE (C) NO.589/2015
ANNEXURE A8:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NUMBERED AS G.O.(RT) NO.84/2018/AYUSH DATED 21.02.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶17

JJJ

¶18

ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. &

¶19

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶20

Contempt Case (Civil) No. 169 of 2018 (S)

¶21

Dated: 13^th March, 2018

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Antony Dominic, C.J.

¶24

The appellant in W.A. No.969 of 2017 is the petitioner. The said appeal was filed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.20803 of 2016 and the appeal was disposed of along with the W.A. No.831 of 2017 directing the Government to decide the issues as directed by the learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties concerned. Considering the fact that the admissions to the ensuing session would depend upon the decision to be taken by the Government and the urgency of the matter, this Court ordered that a decision shall be taken within one month after hearing the parties. It is complaining of non compliance with the directions in the judgment this petition is filed.

¶25

COC No. 169/2018

¶26

-2-

¶27

During the pendency of the petition, in the purported compliance of the directions in the judgment, the Principal Secretary to Government, Ayush (B) Department passed order dated 21.02.2018, a copy of which has been produced by the petitioner along with I.A. No.225 of 2018. In this order, though the petitioner has been permitted to start the Certificate Course in Pharmacy (CCP), the same has been made subject to the conditions which will be framed by the Government, including that 50% of the total seats will be filled up by the Government. Now the grievance of the petitioner is mainly regarding the uncertainty that is created on account of the aforesaid rider incorporated in the Government Order dated 21.02.2018.

¶28

Insofar as the above aspect of the matter is concerned, we heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶29

According to us, a reading of the order itself would show that as on today the petitioner is entitled to

¶30

COC No. 169/2018

¶31

-3-

¶32

start the CCP. Thereafter, if the Government frames any conditions, including filling up of 50% of the seats, and if those conditions are found to be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, it would be open to the petitioner to seek his remedies in accordance with law at that stage.

¶33

Clarifying the position as above and leaving it open to the petitioner to start CCP on the strength of Government Order dated 21.02.2018, the contempt case is closed.

¶34

Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶35

Sd/DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶36

jjj 14/03/2018

Dr. A.K.B Sadbhavana Mission Trust v. B. Srinivas I.A.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. A.K.B Sadbhavana Mission Trust v. B. Srinivas I.A.S

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

Rugmini Vs C.D.Bobby

Mukesh Vs Union of India

M/S Builders Association of India Vs the State of Kerala

Soman Vs Vijaya Bank Limited

Girish Kumar Vs Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.

Thajudheen.a Vs State of Kerala