High Court Kerala High Court

C.G.Zachariah vs K.V.Muraleedharan on 24 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
C.G.Zachariah vs K.V.Muraleedharan on 24 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con.Case(C).No. 1274 of 2009(S)


1. C.G.ZACHARIAH, CHENNANKARA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.V.MURALEEDHARAN, FATHER'S NAME AND
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOMY GEORGE

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :24/06/2010

 O R D E R
                     P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
                    ---------------------------
                     Cont. Case (C) No.1274 of 2009-S
                   ----------------------------
                Dated this the 24th day of June, 2010.

                           J U D G M E N T

This Contempt of Court Case has been filed, alleging wilful

disobedience of the direction given by this Court vide Annexure 1

judgment dated 2.4.2009 in W.P.(C) No.22988 of 2007. Case of the

petitioner is that, in spite of the clear direction given by this Court to

finalise the matter after hearing the petitioner, no notice whatsoever was

issued and Annexure A2 order was passed on 2.7.2009, which is nothing

but an instance of contumacious act and hence sought to be pressed

further.

2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court

on 21.5.2010; the contents of the affidavit dated 6.4.2010 filed by the

contemnor were found as not satisfactory. In the said circumstances, this

Court directed the learned Government Pleader to make available the

original of register, if any, to show the acceptance of the notice by the

petitioner and also the original of the proceedings as to the hearing held

on 2.7.2009, establishing the presence of the petitioner and other parties

concerned. Pursuant to the above order, an additional affidavit was filed

by the contemnor, explaining the sequence of events, also expressing

Cont. Case (C) No.1274 of 2009-S 2

`unconditional apology’ for the unintentional lapses. It was conceded

that Anenxure 2 was not in conformity with the direction given by this

Court vide Annexure 1.

3. In the additional affidavit, it was stated that, Annexure R1(a)

notice dated `6.5.2009′ was actually sent to the petitioner on

`11.5.2009′. On going through the original of the said notice produced

before this Court, it was noted that eventhough the notice was dated

6.5.2009, it was actually `signed’ by the contemnor only on `12.5.2009′,

whereas the entry made in the `despatch register’ was on the previous

day ie. on 11.5.2009 (which was also produced before this Court for

perusal). In the said circumstances, on confronting with the actual

position as above, the respondent/contemnor sought for some more time

to file a supplementary affidavit and accordingly, the matter was

adjourned to 28.5.2010, further adjourned to 8.6.2010.

4. Today, the learned Government Pleader submits that

Annexure A2 order has been re-called vide order No.A4.36/01 dated

15.6.2010, passed by the concerned officer, who is now holding the post

of `Puncha Special Officer’, Alappuzha. A copy of the said order has been

produced before this Court by the learned Government Pleader. It is

stated in the said order that, the parties will be given further opportunity

before passing fresh order. In the said circumstances, the proceedings

are permitted to be taken to the logical conclusion, in tune with the

Cont. Case (C) No.1274 of 2009-S 3

direction given in Annexure A1 judgment. Taking note of the fact that it

is rather difficult to finalise the proceedings during the rainy season, the

concerned authority is granted a further period of three months from

today.

5. In view of the unconditional apology expressed by the

Contemnor as to the contents of the affidavit, which actually did not

reconcile with the actual facts and figures and also in view of the

subsequent turn of events re-calling Annexure A2 order, this Court does

not find it necessary to proceed with further steps in the contempt

matter, but for deprecating the course pursued by the contemnor in the

strongest possible words. Accordingly, further proceedings are dropped,

however directing the contemnor to pay the cost of Rs.5,000/- to the

petitioner within one month. It is made clear that the cost ordered shall

be borne by the Contemnor himself.

The Contempt of Court Case is closed.

Sd/-

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge

ab