In a contempt case, a Bench found that a respondent issued an order in violation of a prior High Court direction to hear the petitioner first. The court directed the withdrawal of the impugned order, a fresh hearing, and a new order within three months.
The respondent to withdraw Annexure A2, hear the petitioner, and issue a fresh order within three months.
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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 3RD MAGHA, 1944
CON.CASE(C) NO. 60 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 33081/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER:
O.R RATHISH
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O RAJENDRAKURUP,
OLEAMMOOTTIL HOUSE,
KOOMANPARA,
IDUKKI,
KERALA., PIN - 685561
BY ADVS.
P.V.JAYACHANDRAN
VENUGOPALAN MENON
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:
SMT. ISHITA ROY
AGE AND HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER,
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION(A) DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, ANNEX II,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
SRI.S.GOPINADHAN -SR.GP
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
..2..
COC.No.60 /2023
JUDGMENT
This Contempt Case has been filed on the specific assertion that Annexure A2 order dated 24.11.2022 has been issued by the respondent in violation of the directions in the judgment dated 20.07.2022.
..3..
COC.No.60 /2023
whatever be the nature of the Government Order dated 01.09.2021, when this Court directed that petitioner must be heard before a further order is issued, it ought to have been done. It is more so because, it was also noticed in the judgment - at the instance of the learned Senior Government Pleader - that Government may have taken an earlier decision and I had made it clear that said decision will apply only until the exercise as ordered in the judgment is completed.
Resultantly, I accede to the afore suggestion of the learned Senior Government Pleader.
COC.No.60 /2023
Consequently, this Contempt Case is closed, recording that Annexure A2 will stand withdrawn and that petitioner will be heard by the respondent, leading to a fresh order being issued, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
It goes without saying that petitioner is left full liberty to approach this Court again, if any of the afore undertakings are violated.
Axiomatically, the petitioner will also have liberty to challenge all promotions that have been made in the meanwhile, for which purpose, all their contentions are left open, subject to the afore decision.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ACR
COC.No.60 /2023
..5..
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 60/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WP(C)NO.33081 OF 2019 DATED 20.7.2022.
Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
GO(RT)NO.1738/2022/ HEDN DATED
24.11.2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a government order issued in violation of a court direction to hear the petitioner first can sustain a contempt sanction.
Whether the respondent must withdraw the impugned order pending hearing of the petitioner.
O.R. RATHISH
SMT. ISHITA ROY
SRI.S.GOPINADHAN
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court