Dismissed

Minority Indians Planning and Vigilance Commission Trust, v. Pranab Jyothinath IAS

Kerala HC3 Aug 2021Con.Case(C)/998/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted six months extension to Government of Kerala to finalise socio-economic study report for identifying backward classes pursuant to earlier judgment. Contempt petition dismissed as matter resolved by extension order.

What did the court decide?

Extension of six months granted to finalize socio-economic study report. Contempt petition closed.

Minority Indians Planning and Vigilance… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2021)

¶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

TUESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1943

¶7

CON.CASE(C) NO. 998 OF 2021

¶8

¶9

KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶10

PETITIONER/S:

¶11

MINORITY INDIANS PLANNING AND VIGILANCE COMMISSION TRUST, REPRESENTED BY IT CHAIRMAN, V.K BEERAN, 11/147, HOLY GHOST CONVENT ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM 683108

¶12

BY ADVS. O.A.NURIYA HARIS BEERAN AZHAR ASSEES

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

SHRI. PRANAB JYOTHINATH IAS (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Cont. Case.998/2021 & I.A.1/2021 in WP(C).19937/2019

¶17

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2021

¶20

S. Manikumar, CJ.

¶21

Alleging intentional violation of the judgment in W.P(C). No.19937 of 2019 dated 8.9.2020, instant Contempt Petition is filed. Contending inter alia that the directions issued could not be not complied within time, Government of Kerala have filed I.A. No.1 of 2021 in W.P(C). No. 19937 of 2019, for enlargement of time, for a period of 12 months from 8.3.2021. Reasons assigned in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.1 of 2021, read thus:

¶22

“3. It is submitted that the Central Government had not conducted socio economic study and has not parted the details to the State. The State cannot undertake an independent socio economic study which is to be done as part of the Census. The Union Government alone can conduct the Census, being a subject under Entry 69 of List 1 and part of which, the socio economic status also. Unless the Union Government part with the data, the State cannot undertake the further actions. So within the stipulated time, the State cannot do the actions required under the judgment.

¶23

In the meanwhile, in connection with Local Body Elections, the Code of Conduct came into existence. Now the Legislative Assembly Election having declared and Code of

¶24

Cont. Case.998/2021 & I.A.1/2021 in WP(C).19937/2019

¶25

¶26

Conduct has come into existence. So the delay occurred in taking actions as directed by the judgment. The Union Government may be directed to part with the data regarding socio economic status at the earliest to enable the State to complete the actions. The time limit prescribed for the compliance of judgment expires on 07.03.2021. ”

¶27

Contempt petitioner has filed counter affidavit refuting the averments extracted supra. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit, being relevant for deciding us to whether time has to be extended or not, are extracted hereunder:

¶28

“3. With regard to the submission of the State in paragraph 3 of the affidavit that the Central Government has not conducted socio economic study and has not parted details to the State, is highly misleading. Had the State made even any feeble attempt to get the details from the Central Government?

¶29

As stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit of the State, that the time limit prescribed for the compliance of the directions in the judgment expired on 7.3.2021. It is pertinent to note that though the instant application is dated 5^th day of March 2021, even after 4 months, the State had not made any attempt to bring it up before this Honourable Court and did not try to get an order of enlargement of time. Moreover on 28.1.2021, the second respondent Commission informed this deponent in an answer to a question sought under RTI Act that no report has been received from the State. A true copy of the answer No.53/C/2021/KSCBC dated 28.1.2021 is

¶30

Cont. Case.998/2021 & I.A.1/2021 in WP(C).19937/2019

¶31

¶32

produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A. Again on 25.1.2021, one Mr. Ramachandran received an answer from from the first respondent on a query under RTI Act that the Government is examining the matter of conducting socioeconomic caste survey as per the direction of this Hon'ble High Court. The above said communication No.A3/15/2021/P.V.V.V.A dated 25.1.2021 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-B. One Haji K.V.Abdulla Kutty, a member of the petitioner trust received a communication No.B2/211/2019/P.V.V.V.A dated 20.1.2021 from the first respondent State that the review and revision of the reservation ist cannot be possible since the socioeconomic caste survey details are not available with the first respondent. The above said communication is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-C.”

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶34

Indisputably, Covid pandemic has affected the administration and thus there is delay in complying with certain matters as directed. In the case on hand, after considering the role of both the Central and State Governments, with reference to the statutory provisions under Section 11 of Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 and Article 338(B) of the Constitution- Duty of the Commission (Amendment Act, 2018), we directed thus:-

¶35

Cont. Case.998/2021 & I.A.1/2021 in WP(C).19937/2019

¶36

¶37

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the issue can be sorted out only by the efforts of the Commission and other stakeholders, as discussed above. Therefore, the Commission cannot be directed to proceed with the enquiry to be undertaken as per Act, 1993, without the receipt of a socio-economic study report from the appropriate authority. Therefore, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners in that regard cannot be granted as of now. However, the Union and the State Governments are directed to take necessary steps for finalisation of the report of socioeconomic study taking into account all parameters required for identification of socially and educationally backward classes within the State of Kerala, at the earliest, and submit a report to the 3rd respondent Commission. After submission of the said report, by the authorities concerned, Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes and the Central Government shall take all earnest endeavour to finalise the evaluation and submit recommendations to the State Government. The above exercise, by all concerned, should be completed, within six months from today. Therefore, we hope that the State Government and all the stakeholders will do the necessary, in order to finalise the report of socioeconomic study of socially and educationally backward classes, as observed and directed above.”

¶38

As per the directions, it is a combined exercise of both the Union and State Government to take necessary steps for finalisation of the report of Socio-economic study, taking into account all the

¶39

Cont. Case.998/2021 & I.A.1/2021 in WP(C).19937/2019

¶40

¶41

parameters required for identification of socially and educationally backward classes within the State of Kerala. Though, in the judgment, this Court granted six months time to finalise the study, due to reasons stated supra, State Government seeks 12 months time to comply with the directions. I.A. No.1/2021 has been filed in March, 2021. Almost five months have gone. Accepting the reasons stated supra, we are inclined to grant extension of time by six months from today to complete the entire exercise and to carry out the directions.

¶42

In view of the extension of time, granted in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in W.P(C). No.19937 of 2019, instant Contempt petition is closed.

Sd/S. Manikumar,

Chief Justice

Sd/-

Shaji P. Chaly, Judge

¶47

sou.

¶48

Cont. Case.998/2021 & I.A.1/2021 in WP(C).19937/2019

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 998/2021

¶51

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

¶52

Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22-07-2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C) NO. 19937 OF 2019

¶53

Annexure A-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 16-10-2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C) NO. 19937 OF 2019 Annexure A-3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08-09-2020 IN W.PC NO. 19937 OF 2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Minority Indians Planning and Vigilance Commission Trust, v. Pranab Jyothinath IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minority Indians Planning and Vigilance Commission Trust, v. Pranab Jyothinath IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aswin Manmathan, Vs A.P.J Abdul Kalam Technological University

Leashar Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

State of Kerala Vs Rahul S Krishnan

P.J.Sibi Vs Mayakrishnan S.P

District Tourism Promotion Council (D.T.P.C.) Vs State of Kerala

Siyad a. E. Vs State of Kerala(Deleted)