The Court held that the subject matter, involving the execution of a previous writ judgment, is not suitable for contempt proceedings and should be challenged in separate proceedings. The contempt case was closed with rights preserved.
The Contempt Case is closed. Right to challenge the order by appropriate proceedings and right to raise grounds are left open.
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 MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1943
CON.CASE(C) NO. 377 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25890/2017 DATED 01.10.2021 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
1 SURESH K AGED 46 YEARS S/O. KARUNAKARAN, CHARIVUKALAYIL HOUSE, RANNI - PERUNAD P.O, PIN - 689711.
BY ADV V.SETHUNATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1&3:
1 T.K.JOSE IAS
(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION & WATER SUPPLY B DEPARTMENT) ROOM NO. 357 (A) & 358 MAIN BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, (EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN, WATER AUTHORITY) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN: 695001
2 PRANABJYOTI NATH IAS (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION & WATER SUPPLY B DEPARTMENT) ROOM NO. 390, 1ST FLOOR, MAIN BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001.
BY ADV.SMT. REKHA S, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con. Case(C) No.377 of 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2022
This Court by judgment dated 01.10.2021 in W.P. (C.)No.25890/2017 had directed the first respondent to hear the petitioner and to consider his grievance in the light of Exts.P4 and P5 judgments coupled with Ext.P12 order produced in the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that though by Annexure-3 order, the authority has purportedly complied with the directions of this Court, ultimately, the findings of this Court has been unsettled and several conclusions contrary to facts and law have been arrived at. Learned Counsel was also not permitted to appear on behalf of the petitioner.
Con. Case(C) No.377 of 2022
3
assailed in a separate proceedings. Consequently, the Contempt Case is closed reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge Annexure-3 by appropriate proceedings and the right to raise all possible grounds is left open.
With these observations, the Contempt Case is closed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
JUDGE
SKP/22.02
Con. Case(C) No.377 of 2022
4
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 377/2022
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 25890/2017 DATED 1.10.2021. ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.2.2022 ISSUED BY THE ASST. ENGINEER, WATER AUTHORITY. ANNEXURE 3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.2.2022.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A.TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the subject matter of the writ judgment is amenable to contempt proceedings or requires separate proceedings.
Whether the petitioner can challenge the non-compliance of previous court directions in contempt.
SURESH K
T.K.JOSE
PRANABJYOTI NATH
SUNIL THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
