Mathai M.K vs Fr.Thomas Paul Ramban
2021 Latest Caselaw 285 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

                                  &

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

   WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

                       Con.APP(C).No.4 OF 2020

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Con.Case(C) 2615/2019 OF HIGH COURT
                            OF KERALA


APPELLANT/S:

      1        MATHAI M.K.
               AGED 57 YEARS
               S/O KURIAKOSE, INDIAN INHABITANT, RESIDING AT
               MALIYELIYIL, THANKALAM, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM,
               PIN-686 692

      2        JOSH VARGHESE,
               AGED 40 YEARS
               S/O. VARGHESE, MAARCHERY (H), KARUKADOM P.O,
               KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686 691

      3        ASHBY VARGHESE,
               AGED 46 YEARS
               CHUNDATTU HOUSE, GREENS ROAD NEAR SUBSTATION,
               KOTHAMANGALAM , PIN-686 691

      4        BINU T.P,
               AGED 43 YEARS
               S/O. T.V. POULOSE, THACHETHKUDYIL (H), THANKALAM,
               THRIKKARIYOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686 692

      5        ELDHOSE K.A,
               AGED 52 YEARS
               S/O. AUGUSTIN, KODIYANKUNNEL HOUSE, AMBALAPARAMBU,
               KUTHUKUZHI P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686 691

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA
               SRI.P.BIJIMON
               SHRI. ABDUL JABBARUDEEN.M
               SMT. MARIA NEDUMPARA
               SHRI.KORAH JOY
 Con.APP(C).No.4 OF 2020            2



RESPONDENT/S:

         1         FR.THOMAS PAUL RAMBAN
                   AGED 46 YEARS
                   S/O. LATE PAULOSE, MARACHERIL HOUSE, KUTHUKUZHI
                   KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
                   PIN-686 691

         2         S. SUHAS,
                   DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
                   KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030


OTHER PRESENT:

                   SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY, SRI.ROSHEN
                   D.ALEXANDER

     THIS CONTEMPT APPEALS (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con.APP(C).No.4 OF 2020            3




                                                                  (C.R.)
               ALEXANDER THOMAS & T.R. RAVI, JJ.
                   ===================
                       Cont.Appeal (C) No.4 of 2020
 [arising out of order dated 8.12.2020 in I.A.No. 9/2020 in Contempt
         Case (Civil) No.4/2020 in W.P.(C).No. 25089/2019]
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - -
                    Dated this the 6th day of January, 2021

                               JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

The above Contempt Appeal (C) has been instituted to impugn the

order dated 8.12.2020 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court

on IA No. 9/2020 in contempt of court case (C) No.2615 of 2019.

2. Heard Sri.Mathew J Nedumpara, learned counsel appearing for

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

respondent-District Collector and Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned senior counsel

instructed by Sri.Roshen.D. Alexander, learned counsel appearing for

contesting respondent No.1.

3. The appellants herein are not parties to the Writ Petition

(Civil), W.P.(C).No. 25089 of 2019, from which the abovesaid contempt of

court case COC No. 2615 of 2019 has arisen. The 1 st respondent herein had

filed the above contempt of court case (C) No.2615 of 2019 alleging non-

compliance of the directions and orders passed by this Court in the

judgment dated 3.12.2019 in W.P.(C).No. 25089/2019. The appellants

herein thereafter have approached the learned single Judge by filing the

instant unnumbered IA which was subsequently numbered as IA No.9 of

2020 in the above contempt of court case (Civil) No.2615/2019, praying

that they are directly affected by the proceedings in the contempt of court

case and that if the contempt action is taken against the respondent-

District Collector, it would amount to directly affecting the rights and

interests of the appellants herein. The learned single Judge of this Court as

per the impugned order rendered on 8.10.2020 has held that the third

parties like the appellants herein do not have any statutory right to seek

impleadment or intervention in contempt of court proceedings. It is this

order rendered by the learned single Judge on 8.10.2020 in the abovesaid

contempt of court case No. 2615 of 2019 that is under challenge in this

case. Various submissions have been made by counsel for the appellants as

well as the abovesaid learned senior counsel appearing for contesting

respondent No.1 and the learned State Attorney appearing for the 2 nd

respondent-District Collector.

4. After hearing all the parties concerned and after bestowing

anxious consideration, we are of the considered view that the short point

that is to be decided in this case is only as to whether the third parties like

the appellants herein have the legal or statutory right to seek the

impleadment or intervention in contempt of court proceedings. The matter

in issue in that regard is no longer res integra and it is now well established

that once contempt proceedings are initiated, then the matter is entirely

between the court and the alleged contemnor concerned and the third

parties cannot demand that they should be allowed to get themselves

impleaded in the contempt proceedings or they should be allowed to

intervene in the contempt proceedings etc.

5. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Sivankutty

v. K.C.Joseph [2017 (1) KHC 940] has taken the considered view that

when the court has taken cognizance of a case of contempt, then the matter

is entirely between the court and the contemnor and there is no scope for

any third party intervention in such contempt proceedings.

6. We are in respectful and full concurrence in the abovesaid views

already rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the abovesaid

reported judgment [2017 (1) KHC 940]. During the course of submissions,

we had also specifically queried to Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney as

to the stand of the State on this issue regarding the right claimed by the

third parties like the appellants for seeking impleadment in the contempt

proceedings.

7. The appellants would urge that though they are not parties to

W.P.(C).No. 25089 of 2019, they are directly affected by the orders and

directions given in the judgment in that W.P.(C)., as they are the

parishioners of the church. That as they are thus directly affected parties,

they have the right to seek intervention or impleadment in the contempt

case, which is for enforcement and execution of the directions in that

W.P.(C). With regard to the afore submission, it may be appropriate to

refer to an illustrative scenario. Let us envisage a Writ Petition being

instituted before this Court, seeking reliefs against the official respondents

and also seeking quashment of certain beneficial orders or benefits given to

the private contesting party respondents therein and praying for

mandamus and directions to the official respondents to grant certain

benefits to the petitioners therein and after hearing all the official

respondents and private contesting respondents, this Court renders the

final verdict in the W.P.(C.), which is later affirmed in intra court appeal

and civil appeal/SLPs by the Apex Court. Thereafter, if there is blatant non

compliance of the concluded directions by the official respondents, the

successful petitioners may institute contempt proceedings in which the

incumbents holding the official position of the official respondents

concerned, who are to obey the directions in the W.P.(C.) are arrayed as

respondents/alleged contemnors in the contempt petitions. At that stage,

can the private contesting respondents demand as of right that that they

should be allowed impleadment or intervention in contempt proceedings

initiated against the official respondents, on the ground that the private

party respondents in the W.P.(C) will be directly affected, if the already

concluded judgment is enforced? Any reasonable and prudent person

instructed on the elementary factual and legal aspects, can only negative

any such plea that the private party respondents or third parties, have the

right to demand so. The simple reason for this is that after conclusion of a

judicial verdict, which has become final, the contempt proceedings arising

therefrom is essentially between the court and the alleged

contemnor/respondent in the contempt case.If private contesting

respondents or third parties who may be affected by the enforcement of the

already concluded judicial verdict are to be understood to have the legal

right to demand such impleadment or intervention in contempt

proceedings, then the conclusion of contempt proceedings may well nigh

become extremely difficult or even reasonably not possible. Moreover, the

action to be taken in the contempt case,including the rendering of the

finding of guilt or otherwise and the issue of quantum of punishment, if any

of the alleged contemnor is to be defended solely by the alleged contemnor.

If private contesting respondents in the W.P.(C.) or third party are

permitted as of right to intervene,the basic scheme and objective of the

contempt proceedings and its jurisdiction would be detrimentally affected.

So the plea of a legal right to secure impleadment or intervention of such parties

in contempt cases is thoroughly misconceived and untenable. So the above

said contentions of the appellants are only to be rejected and we do so.

8. Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney would submit fairly and

that too on the basis of instructions that the abovesaid legal position

already settled by the Division Bench in the abovesaid reported judgment

in Sivankutty's case (supra) [2017 (1) KHC 940] reflects the correct legal

position in that regard and that the third parties do not have any statutory

right to seek impleadment or intervention in the contempt proceedings.

That matter is essentially between the court and the alleged contemnor.

9. Further, Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney appearing for

the 2nd respondent-District Collector would submit on the basis of

instructions that apart, from the abovesaid order dated 8.12.2020 rendered

by the learned single Judge in the above contempt of court case (which is

impugned in this contempt Appeal), the learned single Judge had also

passed yet another order on the same day, viz. 8.12.2020 in the said COC

No.2615 of 2019 directing the respondent-District Collector to take

possession of the church etc. and also issuing certain directions to the

CRPF. Further that the State authorities concerned have already filed Writ

Appeal as W.A.No.6 of 2021 as in intra court appeal to challenge the said

order dated 8.12.2020 rendered by the learned single Judge in the said

contempt case and that the said writ appeal No.6 of 2021 is expected to be

listed before the Division Bench concerned within a day or two.

10. As regards the abovesaid other submissions made by the

learned State Attorney, the consideration of the same need not detain this

Court as those aspects are not the subject matter of the present contempt

appeal and it is for the State authorities concerned to take appropriate

steps in this regard in such writ appeal filed by them.

11. In the light of the abovesaid aspects, we are of the considered

view that the impugned order rendered by the learned single Judge on

8.12.2020 holding that third parties like the appellants herein do not have

any right to seek impleament or intervention in the contempt proceedings,

does not deserve any interdiction at the hands of this appellate court.

Accordingly, the above Contempt Appeal will stand dismissed.

SD/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

SD/-

T.R. RAVI, JUDGE SKS sdk+