IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 685 of 2010(S)
1. SRI.MURALI K.SREEDHAR,SREEDHARA COLLEGE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LAMBODARAN NAIR.P.K,IPS (RETIRED),
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH ARAYAKUNNEL
For Respondent :SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :23/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
Contempt Case (C) NO. 685 OF 2010 (S)
============================
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
In this petition, what is complained of is non compliance
with the directions in Annexure 1 judgment in WP(C)
No.9926/2010. In para 16 of the judgment, this Court directed
that the General Body meeting of the Mannam Memorial
National Club, Thiruvananthapuram shall be held, that
proceedings against the 4th respondent should be completed, and
if necessary, fresh election to the post of Treasurer shall be held
without any further delay. It was directed that these processes
should be completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate
within one month of the date of the judgment.
2. Petitioner submits that though the General Body was
held as directed, proceedings against him were not finalised, and
therefore in that sense, the judgment has not been complied
with.
3. However, the case of the respondents as disclosed
from the counter affidavit is that pursuant to the directions in
the judgment, notices were issued to all members and the
COC No.685/2010
:2 :
General Body was held on 16/5/2010. It is also stated that,
subsequently, petitioner has been removed from the membership
of the Club and that in the General Body Meeting held on
11/7/2010, a new Treasurer has also been elected. Therefore,
according to the Club, the direction in the judgment have been
complied with within the time as extended as per the order in IA
No.5063/10.
4. Substantially, the directions in the judgment have
been complied with, and at best, it may be a case where the time
limit has not been complied with, for which I do not think it
necessary to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts
Act.
5. If in the General Body meeting held, or in the election
to the post of Treasurer, any irregularity has been committed by
the Club, that is not an issue which is covered by the judgment,
and if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, he will have to seek his
remedies before the Civil Court. I am not persuaded to think
that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are
warranted.
Contempt Petition is closed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp