Kerala High Court

Counsel Instructed By Sri.Roshen ... vs Unknown on 15 January, 2021

            ALEXANDER THOMAS & T.R.RAVI, JJ.
                  ========================
                          W.A.No.6 of 2021
                                   &
                   Defect Filing No.2382 of 2021 -
                 Unnumbered I.A.No...........of 2021 &
                  Unnumbered I.A.No...........of 2021
                                  in
                Unnumbered W.A.No..................2021
               (Both arising out of the impugned order
             dt.08.12.2020 of the learned Single Judge in
            Contempt Case No.2615 of 2019 arising out of
                   judgment dated 03.12.2019 in
                      W.P.(C)No.25089 of 2019)
                  ========================
            Dated this the 15th day of January, 2021


                             ORDER

W.A.No.6 of 2021

We have already passed an interim order on 07.01.2021 in this

case, dealing with various aspects of the matter. After the conclusion

of the hearing on 07.01.2021, Sri.S. Sreekumar, learned Senior

Counsel instructed by Sri.Roshen D. Alexander, learned counsel

appearing for the contesting respondent in the above writ appeal

(contempt petitioner) submitted that the appeal may be adjourned

by two months as the parties concerned are insisting to file SLP

before the Apex Court to challenge the order we had passed in the

aforesaid appeal on 07.01.2021.

W.A.No.6 of 2021

2. Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of

India, appearing for the Union Government had also, inter alia,

submitted that he has been specifically instructed by the competent

authorities of the Union Government to file a review petition to

challenge the very same impugned order dated 08.12.2020 in the

above contempt case, but only to the limited aspect, mainly arising

out of paragraph 8 of the said impugned order and consequential

aspects arising therefrom.

3. Today when the matter is taken up for consideration,

submission is made by Sri.P.Martin Jose, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent in the appeal (contempt petitioner) that the case

may be adjourned by a week or so and that so far the contempt

petitioner has not been served with a copy of any review petition that

may have been filed by the Union Government as against the very

same impugned order. To a specific query in that regard,

Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India would

submit that competent authority of the Union Government has

already instructed him to file review petition as aforesaid and that

even though the review petition has been prepared, as per the

consistent practice and norms he has already forwarded the drafted W.A.No.6 of 2021

review petition to the competent authority of the Union Government,

who will have to follow their procedural norms to process the same

and then to give subsequent instruction in the matter and that the

procedure will have to be complied with strictly in all such cases and

that it is all the more so required, taking into account the facts and

circumstances of the case and that the Union Government would

require more time to file review petition as against the impugned

order of the learned Single Judge.

4. Further Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor

General of India on specific instructions submitted that it is expected

that the above said procedural formalities would be completed and

the review petition will be filed by the Union Government within 10

days or so and that the case may be adjourned by two weeks to enable

him to apprise this court about the filing of the review petition.

5. Sri.P.Martin Jose, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent in the appeal (contempt petitioner) would submit that

though he has no final instructions in the matter as to whether his

party would file SLP before the Apex Court as against the previous

order dated 07.01.2021 in this case and that it appears that his party

may not now insist to file an SLP as against the impugned order and W.A.No.6 of 2021

that the scheduling of the hearing of this appeal may be considered by

this Court on the next posting date, so that by that time, this Court

also would be able to ascertain from the learned Assistant Solicitor

General of India as to whether review petition has been filed or not.

6. Sri.P.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel instructed by

Sri Saji Varghese, learned counsel appearing for contesting

respondent No.8 (one Fr.Basil K.Philip) in Annexure A1 judgment in

W.P.(C)No.25089/2019, would submit that the said respondent is

also filing a separate writ appeal along with a leave application to

challenge the very same impugned order dated 08.12.2020 rendered

by a learned Single Judge in the contempt case and that short

breathing time may be given to his party to enable the filing of such

writ appeal and that though the said party may be a third party in the

contempt proceedings, he is in fact a party in the writ petition

concerned, from which the contempt case has arisen. We have

apprised the learned Senior Counsel Sri.P.Ravindran and made it

clear that already we have a third party appeal, which is the other

appeal given in the cause title and that contempt proceedings is

essentially between the court and alleged contemner and that though

the said party may be a party in the writ petition, we should not be W.A.No.6 of 2021

made to face the predicament of each and every party in the main

writ petition or parties who claim to be parishioners and affected by

the impact of the directions in the contempt case, who keep on filing

writ appeals before this Court to challenge the said impugned order

dated 08.12.2020 rendered by the learned Single Judge in the

contempt proceedings. However, the issue as to whether leave is to

be granted or whether appeal is to be entertained, etc. could be

decided after the filing of the said third party appeal along with the

leave application and after reasonable time to the contempt petitioner

and the State authorities to file their objections, if any, to such leave

applications. So also, we have asked Sri.P.Martin Jose, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent in the appeal (contempt

petitioner) as to whether his party wants to file objections/counter

affidavit to the leave application filed in the above defective appeal.

Sri.P.Martin Jose, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in

the appeal (contempt petitioner) would submit that his party would

apprise this Court on the next posting date as to whether he wants to

file counter affidavit or objections to such leave applications of third

parties and that as of now he has not secured instructions, for the

simple reason that the above said unnumbered leave application in W.A.No.6 of 2021

the unnumbered writ appeal has been posted in the admission list for

the first time.

7. Therefore, we would request all the parties concerned to

clearly apprise this Court as to when exactly the matter could be

taken up for hearing and disposal. In the light of these aspects, we

are constrained to adjourn the case. Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned State

Attorney appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.6 of 2021 would

submit that if the case is being adjourned, then this Court may make

sure that the interim order also is extended until further orders.

Sri.P.Martin Jose, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in

the appeal (contempt petitioner) submitted that the interim order

may not be extended until further o rders and that the same may be

extended only till the next posting date. We are sure that all the

learned Advocates know that we have workload in our regular roster

and this case has been posted before us as it is avoided by the regular

Bench and therefore we should not be put in a situation to constantly

adjourn the case and then granting only piece meal interim order

extensions so that the Registry is constrained to post this case time

and again.

8. As of now we would only order that the interim order W.A.No.6 of 2021

dated 07.01.2021 rendered by us in the above W.A.No.6 of 2021

ordering the deferment of the contempt proceedings arising out of

the impugned order dated 08.12.2020 will stand extended till the

next posting date. We request all the parties concerned to apprise us

on the next posting date as to when the matter could be taken up for

hearing and disposal and more particularly as to whether review

petition has been filed by the Union Government.

9. Since we have already ordered deferment of the contempt

proceedings, we make it clear that if any review petition is filed by the

Union Government as against the above said impugned interim order

dated 08.12.2020 in the contempt case, before the learned Single

Judge, the pendency of this appeal and the order of deferment of

further proceedings will not in any manner preclude the

consideration and disposal of the review petition. Moreover, we have

very guardedly and consciously worded the interim order granted on

07.01.2021 that the deferment of the impugned proceedings in the

contempt case before the learned Single Judge is in respect of matters

arising out of the impugned order dated 08.12.2020 rendered in the

said contempt case. We would also request all the learned Advocates

concerned to apprise this Court on the next posting date as to W.A.No.6 of 2021

whether the appeal is to be taken up for final disposal, if the Union

Government files the review application.

List the case on 02.02.2021.

Defect Filing No.2382/2021 - Unnumbered I.A.No...........of 2021 in Unnumbered W.A.No...........of 2021 (Arising out of the impugned order dt.08.12.2020 of the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case No.2615 of 2019 arising out of judgment dated 03.12.2019 in W.P.(C)No.25089 of 2019) seeking leave to appeal & Unnumbered I.A.No...........of 2021 in Unnumbered W.A.No...........of 2021 seeking time to produce certified copy of judgment dated 08.12.2020 in Contempt Case No.2615 of 2019 in W.P.(C)No.25089 of 2019

10. The above unnumbered leave application and

unnumbered writ appeal is coming up for admission for the first time

before the Bench. Sri.P.Martin Jose, learned Advocate appearing for

the contesting 1st respondent in this appeal submits that short time

may be granted to him to get instructions as to whether his party

wants to file written objections/counter affidavit in the leave

application and that counter affidavit/written objections to the above

said leave application will be filed before the next posting date, if so

required.

11. Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney appearing for the 2nd

respondent (District Collector) would submit that short time may be

granted to him to get instructions as to whether objections/counter W.A.No.6 of 2021