Disposed

T.a.Joseph v. M.S.Jaya IAS

Kerala HC12 Apr 2018Con.Case(C)/2300/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed a contempt petition where the respondent claimed inability to comply with prior writ directions. Finding the claim unacceptable, the court closed the case, granting liberty to the respondent to pass appropriate orders within a specified timeline under threat of a re-hearing.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed. Liberty granted to respondent to issue appropriate order by 31.05.2018; liberty to petitioner for re-hearing if time limit exceeded.

T.a.Joseph Vs M.S.Jaya IAS — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 2300 of 2017 IN WPC. 37934/2008

¶6

( AGAINST JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.37934/2008 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22-02-2017)

¶7

PETITIONER(S)

¶8

T.A.JOSEPH

¶9

AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.AUSEPH, RETIRED REFERENCE ASSISTANT, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, RESIDING AT THENKUZHI HOUSE, CUSAT ROAD, CUSAT P.O., KALAMASSERY-682 022.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/4TH RESPONDENT IN WPC:

¶12

SMT.M.S.JAYA IAS

¶13

AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM--695033.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

nkr

¶17

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶18

- - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 2300 of 2017 and I.A. No.320 of 2018

¶19

- - - - Dated this the 12^th day of April, 2018

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

I notice in this Contempt Case that an application numbered as I.A. No.320 of 2018, has been filed praying that an affidavit, dated 26.03.2018, sworn to by the respondent in this Contempt Case, be accepted on record. Interestingly, in this affidavit the respondent says that she is not the Authority to give relaxation to the cut off date fixed by the Government and that the directions of this Court in the Writ Petition cannot be complied with by her. She further says that she has issued Ext.R1(a) order stating these facts and according to her, this Court should accept the same and close this Contempt Case.

¶22

I am afraid that the contents of this affidavit, as also that in Ext.R1(a), prima facie appear to be not in conformity with the directions of this Court. This is because, in the judgment in question I had directed the respondent to reconsider the matter after quashing Ext.P8 order, produced along with the writ petition, holding that Ext.P8(a) Government Order is not applicable. Once Ext.P8(a) order was

¶23

Contempt Case (Civil) No. 2300 of 2017

¶24

-:2:-

¶25

found not applicable, then, obviously, Ext.P8 order had to fail, because the said order was issued solely on the basis of Ext.P8(a) Government Order. It is, therefore, ineluctable that the directions in the judgment in the writ petition to the respondent to reconsider the matter was the most appropriate and requisite in the sense that her earlier order, mainly Ext.P8, had been quashed by this Court. Viewed from that angle, the stand of the respondent presently that she is unable to take action as per the directions of this Court cannot be find favour with me.

¶26

The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Government submits that the affidavit had been filed by the respondent under the bona fide belief that she does not have the competence to act as per the directions of this Court. The learned Government Pleader, however, now says that, going by the views expressed by this Court and recorded herein, he would instruct the respondent to comply with the directions and issue appropriate orders forthwith.

¶27

Taking into account the submissions of learned Government Pleader, I close this Contempt Case giving liberty

¶28

Contempt Case (Civil) No. 2300 of 2017

¶29

-:3:-

¶30

to the respondent to issue an appropriate order, under the terms of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.37934/2008,

¶31

dated 22.02.2017, on or before 31.05.2018. If no orders are passed within this time, the petitioner will be at liberty to seek a re-hearing of the Contempt Case and all issues will be considered on merits at that time.

¶32

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶33

ttb/13.04

T.a.Joseph v. M.S.Jaya IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.a.Joseph v. M.S.Jaya IAS

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

Ashok Kumar P.S. Vs Babu Sebastian, Vice Chancellor, M.G.University

V.Sreelatha Vs Smt.K.Valsala

Secretary, State Co-Operative Employees Pension Board Vs Geetha R.B.

K.P. Prathapan Vs Shinamol

Anilkumar. D Vs Augustin V.A

Mr. M.J. Francis Vs Mohammed Y. Safirulla