High Court Kerala High Court

P.Jayaprakash vs Mervin Alexander on 30 May, 2007

Kerala High Court
P.Jayaprakash vs Mervin Alexander on 30 May, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con Case(C) No. 574 of 2007(S)


1. P.JAYAPRAKASH, POSTAL ASSISTANT(BCR),
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MERVIN ALEXANDER,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :30/05/2007

 O R D E R
                            H.L. DATTU, C.J.  &  K.T. SANKARAN, J.

                                        ------------------------------------

                                              C.O.C.No.574 of 2007

                                         -----------------------------------

                                   Dated this the 30th day of May, 2007


                                                        JUDGMENT

H.L. DATTU, C.J.

Alleging that the respondents have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the directions and

orders passed by this court in W.P.(C)No.20792/06 dated 6th November, 2006, the petitioner is before

us in this petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of

the Constitution of India inter alia requesting us to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings against

the respondents.

2. The respondents are served with copies of the contempt petition and they have entered

appearance through learned counsel.

3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit before this court. In that, they have stated

on oath that they have complied with the orders and directions issued by this court, by disposing of the

application filed by the petitioner for permission to retire from service voluntarily.

4. Having gone through the pleadings in the contempt petition, the orders passed by this

court and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, we are of the opinion that the respondents

have substantially complied with the orders and directions issued by this court. In our view, there is

neither wilful nor deliberate disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this court.

Accordingly, the cognizance of this contempt petition need not be taken. Accordingly, it is dropped.

However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner, if he so desires, to question the orders that has

been passed by the respondents on the application filed by the petitioner. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

H.L. DATTU,

CHIEF JUSTICE.

Sd/-

K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

Sk/

//true copy//

P.S. To Judge