Contempt case concerning non-compliance of W.A. No.205/2022 directions dismissed as the earlier order was subsequently set aside in a connected writ petition.
The contempt case is closed and dismissed as the underlying order has been set aside.
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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1944
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1324 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 205/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 25.3.2022
PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN W.A:
NOELE JOHN KOSHY
AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. KOSHY JOHN,
RESIDING AT SAJI BHAVAN, EDAPPALLY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN – 682024
BY ADVS.
NISHA GEORGE
ANN MARIA FRANCIS
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN W.A:
K. SANJAY MURTHY
(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER), SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
(RE-NAMED AS DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION), SHASTHRI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001
BY ADV
SRI. S.MANU
SRI. JAISHANKAR V. NAIR, CGC
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont.Case(C).1324/2022
2
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2022
S. Manikumar, CJ.
Contending inter alia that directions issued in W.A. No.205 of 2022 was not complied with, instant Contempt Case is filed.
Cont.Case(C).1324/2022
3
Counsel submitted that order dated 21.9.2022, referred to above, has been set aside and allowed the writ petition.
“In the afore circumstances, and for the sole reasons above, I allow this Writ Petition and set aside Ext.P17; with a consequential direction to the Competent Authority of the Government of India to reconsider the petitioner's request, after affording them an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to the parties, petitioner shall not admit any new student into their Off-Campus in Kochi; and I record that this has been undertaken by Sri.P.Sreekumar – their learned counsel.
At this time, Sri.P.Sreekumar – learned counsel for the petitioner requested that his client be also allowed to produce additional documents as are found necessary, before the Government of India, while the afore exercise is taken forward.
Cont.Case(C).1324/2022
4
It goes without saying that if the petitioner requires any further documents or inputs to be considered by the Government of India, they are at liberty to do so, provided that they furnish it within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”
Inasmuch as order dated 21.9.2022 has been subsequently challenged and set aside, as stated supra, nothing survives in the present Contempt Case. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed.
Sd/S. Manikumar, Chief Justice
Sd/Shaji P. Chaly, Judge
sou.
Cont.Case(C).1324/2022
5
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1324/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
25.03.2022 IN W.A.NO.205/2022 PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE-2TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE FATHER OF ONE OF THE
WRIT PETITIONERS DATED 06.05.2022.
ANNEXURE-3TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM
THE RESPONDENT DATED 30.05.2022.
ANNEXURE-4TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION
DATED 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE
PETITIONER HEREIN.
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R1(A)ATRUECOPYOFTHEORDER
F.NO.10/6/2019-U3(A) DATED 21.09.2022
ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jain Deemed to be University v. Union of IndiaReferred¶21
W.P.(C).No.31538 of 2022 (Jain Deemed to be University, represented by it is Registrar v. Union of India, represented by its Secretary to Ministry of Education,
Nolee John Koshy
K. Sanjay Murthy
S.Manikumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court