IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
CON.CASE(C) NO. 678 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18817/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
PETITIONER:
MANJULA GOVIND K
AGED 42 YEARS
KORAPATTA HOUSE, MADAKKALLUR ULLERI, KOZHIKODE, WORKING
AS UPST,
AUP SCHOOL, ERAMANGALAM, BALUSSERRY, KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673612
BY ADVS.
AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
TONY AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENTS:
1 ABDUL RAZAK
ABDUL RAZAK, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER,
NOW WORKING AS THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER,
BALUSSERRY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673612
2 ADDL. R2: C. GOVINDAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
AGED 91 YEARS
SON OF TRIVIKRAMAN NAMBOOTHIRI, CHADAYAN ILLAM,
MADAKALLUR, KOZHIKODE-673 323, NOW WORKING AS THE
MANAGER, AUP SCHOOL, ERAMANGALAM, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE-
673 612.
ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15/06/2022 IN
IA.1/2022 IN COC.678/2022.
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
No Advocate
GOVERNMENT PLEADER(GP-1)
CON.CASE(C) NO. 678 OF 2022
2
R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. PARVATHY K - GP
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CON.CASE(C) NO. 678 OF 2022
3
JUDGMENT
This Contempt Case was filed on the allegation that, in spite of the directions of this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.20341 of 2019, no orders have been issued by the respondent.
2. However, the learned Government Pleader has produced on record an order issued by the respondent on 25/03/2022, along with a memo dated 18th May, 2022, which is seen addressed to the Manager of the School asking him to produce certain additional documents.
3. Sri.Augustine Joseph - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the certificates mentioned in the afore mentioned order are all with the Manager and further that the objections made therein, that there is a difference in the seal and signature of the Authority in the application papers, are untenable and without any basis. He thus prayed CON.CASE(C) NO. 678 OF 2022 4 that necessary action against the respondents be taken forward by this Court, under the Contempt of Courts Act.
4. Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan - learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, submitted that his client has not received the order dated 25/03/2022 from the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO) until now and that if the said Authority informs him what are the documents required, he will have no objection in producing the same, except the "Antecedent Certificate", which will have to be made available by the petitioner himself. He submitted that, therefore, if this Court is so inclined, his client or the authorized representative is willing to appear before the AEO on a particular date, so that he can then be told what are the certificates required.
5. Smt.Parvathy K. - learned Government Pleader, submitted that the documents called for in the order are all requisite as per law and that the deficiency in the application CON.CASE(C) NO. 678 OF 2022 5 relating to the seal and signature has been mentioned therein, so as to alert the Manager. She submitted that, if the Manager vouches for those in the application, it can be then considered.
6. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is evident that, as of today, this Court cannot find either of the respondents guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, since they appear to have acted in furtherance of the directions of this Court.
7. As matters now stand, there is an impediment faced by the petitioner because, some of the documents required by the AEO have not been yet produced. I am, therefore, of the view that the AEO must hear both the Manager and the petitioner on a particular day, so that the documents that are required to be produced can be informed thus allowing them to produce it and obtain a final frutition of the directions of this Court.
CON.CASE(C) NO. 678 OF 2022 6
8. In the afore circumstances, I direct both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent or his authorized representative, to appear before the 1 st respondent at 11.00 a.m. on 5th July, 2022; on which date, or on a date to be fixed on mutual convenience, said Authority will inform them the documents that are required to be produced. On such documents being produced by the petitioner or by the 2nd respondent, as the case may be, the 1st respondent will comply with the directions of this Court, de hors the differences in the signature or seal in the papers submitted by the Manager, if he vouches for the same during the afore mentioned hearing.
This Contempt case is thus closed; however, leaving liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again with a fresh one, if any of the afore undertakings are violated and or if final order in terms of the judgment is not issued by the 1 st CON.CASE(C) NO. 678 OF 2022 7 respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ANB CON.CASE(C) NO. 678 OF 2022 8 APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 678/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.7.2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.20341/2019 Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 7.1.2020 Annexure3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.7.2021 IN W.P.(C ) NO.18817/2020