Kerala High Court
Jacob M.V vs Dr.V.P.Joy I.A.S on 20 July, 2021
Cont. Case (C) No. 1056 of 2021
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1943
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1056 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT).NO.449/2020 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
JACOB M.V., AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, MECHERY
HOUSE, PALAPPILLY, KOOVAKKATTUKUNNU P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 311.
BY ADV SRI.C.A.CHACKO
RESPONDENTS:
1 DR.V.P.JOY I.A.S.,
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 BISWANATH SINHA I.A.S., PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 001,
3 SUMAN BILLA I.A.S., COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL
TAXES, 9TH FLOOR, TAX TOWER, KARAMANA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 002.
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont. Case (C) No. 1056 of 2021
..2..
ALEXANDER THOMAS & T.R.RAVI, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cont. Case (C) No. 1056 of 2021
[arising out of the impugned judgment dated 16.2.2021 in
O.P.(KAT) No. 449 of 2020]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of July, 2021
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
Heard Sri.C.A.Chacko, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner/R-1 in the O.P. and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty,
learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents/petitioners in the O.P.
3. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench
had earlier issued final order dated 29.8.2019 in O.A.(Ekm)
No.144/2017 filed by the petitioner herein, whereby the Tribunal
has quashed the impugned order dated 3.12.2016 (marked as
Anx.A13 in the O.A.) issued by the Government, rejecting the plea
of the petitioner for grant of appointment as Commercial Tax
Officer [CTO] in exercise of the powers under Rule 39 of KS & SSR
Part II, and has further directed the Government to reconsider the
Cont. Case (C) No. 1056 of 2021
..3..
representation dated 19.1.2016 submitted by the petitioner herein
(marked as Anx.A12 in the O.A.) in accordance with the findings of
the Tribunal in that case and in accordance with the provisions
contained in Rule 39 of KS & SSR Part II, etc.
4. Being aggrieved by said final order dated 29.8.2019
issued by the Tribunal in the above O.A., respondents in the O.A.
had filed OP(KAT) No.449/2020 before this Court. This Court as
per judgment dated 16.2.2021 has dismissed OP(KAT)
No.449/2020 and has thereby upheld the verdict of the Tribunal.
While doing so, this Court had given certain additional reasonings,
apart from the reasonings given by the Tribunal in the final order
dated 29.8.2019 in the O.A.
5. Even before filing of above OP(KAT) before this Court,
the applicant in the O.A. has filed a Contempt Petition (Civil)
No.67/2020 before the Tribunal, praying for taking action under
the Contempt of Court Acts and the Rules framed there under
against the respondents in the O.A. It was during the pendency of
said Contempt Petition (Civil) that the respondents in the O.A. had
approached this Court by filing above OP(KAT), which was
Cont. Case (C) No. 1056 of 2021
..4..
ultimately dismissed on 16.2.2021. Now, it is common ground that
the said Contempt Petition (Civil) No.67/2020 is even now
pending before the KAT, Ernakulam Bench.
6. The petitioner herein/original applicant prays that this
Court should directly take Contempt action against the
respondents as they have not cared to comply with the directions
of the Tribunal, even though it has been upheld by this Court as per
Anx.A1 judgment.
7. Though, this Court has said in para 24 of Anx.A1
judgment in OP(KAT) that the verdict of the Tribunal is modified
as stated therein, the said modification is only granting additional
time to the petitioners therein/respondents in the O.A. to comply
with the directions given by the Tribunal in the above O.A. Since,
the direction which is sought to be complied with is the one
rendered by the Tribunal and not by this Court, it is for the
petitioner to prosecute the Contempt Petition already pending
before the Tribunal. Merely because we have given additional
reasonings for supporting the contention of the Tribunal, and as
extended the time limit will not by itself will lead to any cause of
Cont. Case (C) No. 1056 of 2021
..5..
action to the petitioner to directly approach this Court for
Contempt action. The Court of first instance is, indisputably, the
Tribunal, and the Contempt Petition is already pending, and it is
for the petitioner to prosecute the Contempt Petition further.
However, we take serious note on the conduct of the respondents
inasmuch as, they have not cared to comply with the directions of
the Tribunal even after the same has been upheld by this Court in
Anx.A1 judgment rendered as early as on 16.2.2021. Hence, we
would request the Tribunal to immediately take further steps in the
Contempt Petition, taking note of the fact that the petitioner may
complete the upper age limit of 56 years shortly. The Tribunal is
requested to immediately take up for consideration the abovesaid
matter in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.67/2020, in accordance
with law.
8. We would request the learned Senior Government
Pleader to apprise the respondents in the O.A., more particularly
the Chief Secretary, about the need for expeditious action for
compliance of the directions of the Tribunal, as the same has not
been reversed in the manner known to law.
Cont. Case (C) No. 1056 of 2021
..6..
9. The Registrar General will immediately forward a copy
of this judgment to the Chief Secretary to Government as well as to
the Principal Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister for their
immediate attention. The Registry will also forward a copy of this
judgment to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam
Bench, who is dealing with Contempt Petition (Civil) No.67/2020.
With these observations and directions, the above
Contempt of Court case will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI, JUDGE
MMG
Cont. Case (C) No. 1056 of 2021
..7..
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C).NO.1056/2021
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
16.02.2021 IN OP(KAT) NO.449 OF 2020 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
