Disposed

Kurien Eapen Thomas, v. Sri.a.Shahjahan IAS

Kerala HC10 Feb 2020Con.Case(C)/135/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt of court case arising from an alleged failure to comply with a 2019 order directing government officials to hand over building keys, judges recorded that the delay was due to seeking government concurrence rather than willful disobedience, accepted an apology, and closed the case.

What did the court decide?

Recording compliance of the earlier order and closing the contempt proceeding (CO(C)).

Kurien Eapen Thomas, Vs Sri.a.Shahjahan IAS — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 21ST MAGHA, 1941

¶7

Con.Case(C).No.135 OF 2020 IN WA. 1887/2018

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1887/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

KURIEN EAPEN THOMAS, AGED 78 YEARS S/O. LATE P.M. THOMAS, ELIE HOUSE, NANTHECODE, KOWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 SRI.A.SHAHJAHAN IAS, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPORTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶14

2 JEEVAN BABU, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGTHY, P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 014.

¶15

3 K. SIYAD, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (NORTH) GENERAL POST OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 76695 001.

¶16

R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SR GP TEK CHAND FOR RESPONDENTS

¶19

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

..2..

¶21

Con.Case(C).No.135 OF 2020

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

S.Manikumar, CJ.

¶24

Alleging willful disobedience of the directions issued in judgment dated 03.12.2019 in WA No. 1887 of 2018, by which this Court directed the appellants to hand over the key of the buildings of the 1^st respondent in the appeal within a specified period, instant contempt case is filed.

¶25

On 21.01.2020, noticing a letter dated 04.12.2019 of the Director of the Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram - 2^nd respondent herein, informing the contempt petitioner that the Government has been addressed for issuing necessary directions for implementation of judgment dated 03.12.2019 in WA No.1887 of 2018, we ordered personal appearance of the Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram - 2^nd respondent herein.

¶26

Responding to the above, Sri.Jeevan Babu K. IAS, Director of General Education Department (former Director of Public Instructions), Thiruvananthapuram, who is the 2^nd respondent herein, is present today. Explaining reasons as to why directions were sought for, from the Government for compliance of the directions in judgment

¶27

..3..

¶28

Con.Case(C).No.135 OF 2020

¶29

dated 03.12.2019 in WA No.1887 of 2018, an affidavit dated 10.02.2020 has been filed. He has also tendered unconditional apology. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit dated 10.02.2020 are extracted hereunder:

¶30

“4. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner received the registered letter on 28.01.2020 at 3.30 pm. He reached the office on 30.01.2020 and received the keys giving receipt of the same with his signature. A true copy of the receipt issued by the petitioner and its translation is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(a) . Thus the direction of this Honourable Court have been complied with in its true spirit.

¶31

It is respectfully submitted that as regards the circumstances under which the direction from Government for compliance of the judgment was sought; it is humbly submitted that it was only due to the fact that the Writ Appeal was filed before this Court by the Government as the 1^st appellant and that this deponent being the Director and Subordinate to Government, a concurrence was sought from the Government for a formal compliance of the judgment. This respondent has high regard to the orders of this Honourable Court and never intended to underrate the directions of this Honourable Court. There is no willful or deliberate disobedience to the directions of this Court. It is in view of the circumstances mentioned above, the concurrence of the Government was sought. This respondent hereby place on record sincere, unconditional apology and express

¶32

Con.Case(C).No.135 OF 2020

¶33

..4..

¶34

remorse for having adopted such a course of action.”

¶35

Having regard to the reasons stated, we are of the view that there is no willful contempt on the part of the respondents to proceed further under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, recording compliance, CO(C) is closed.

Sd/-

S.MANIKUMAR

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Bka/10.02.2020

Con.Case(C).No.135 OF 2020

¶44

..5..

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WA NO. 1887/2018 DATED 3.12.2019.

¶48

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.12.2019 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS.

¶49

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. NS(2) 38280(1)/2017/D.G.E. DATED 4.12.2019 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

Kurien Eapen Thomas, v. Sri.a.Shahjahan IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurien Eapen Thomas, v. Sri.a.Shahjahan IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Icici Bank Ltd., Vs Nassaruddin Abdul Majeed

Aadi Dravida Vedar Mahasabha Vs the Registrar General of India

State of Kerala and Another Vs P.D.Raveendran and Another

Union of India, Vs P.v.Yesoda Amma

C.J.Paulose, Vs Vice Admiral Anil Kumar Chawla

A.M.Noushad Vs the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam