Kerala High Court
Rukmani @ Balamani Amma vs Sathyapalan on 28 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1943
CON.CASE(C) NO. 698 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25385/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
PETITIONER:
RUKMANI @ BALAMANI AMMA
AGED 83 YEARS
W/O.LATE RAGHAVAN EZHUTHACHAN,
PATHINARUPOTHIYIL HOUSE, VELLIYADU, MANNANUR
P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV P.R.SHAJI
RESPONDENT:
SATHYAPALAN
(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN),
ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 101.
SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CON.CASE(C) NO.698/2021 2
JUDGMENT
This contempt case has been filed by the
writ petitioner in W.P(C)No.25385 of 2020 making
various allegations, but primarily that in spite
of the specific directions in the judgment, she
or her counsel has not been heard by the
respondent, while Annexure A12 order had been
issued.
2. Shri.P.R.Shaji, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, vehemently
submitted that he had personally accompanied his
client to the hearing conducted by the
respondent, but that the Authority was not
present on that day and that his office merely
accepted all the documents which appears to have
led to Annexure A12 order. He points out Annexure
A4 in substantiation, which is the receipt issued
by the office of the respondent, indicating that
documents have been received by it. He,
therefore, argued that Annexure A12 cannot be
considered to be an order issued in compliance
with the directions in the judgment and thus
accused that respondent is acting in blatant
contempt to the directions of this Court.
3. Shri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned
Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
respondent, contested the afore submissions of
Shri.P.R.Shaji saying that the respondent heard
the parties and issued Annexure A12 finding that
there were no document or evidence indicating
that petitioner is the legally wedded wife of
late Raghavan Ezhuthachan. He further submitted
that the parties were also not able to produce
documents to show who are the legal heirs of late
Raghavan Ezhuthachan and therefore, prayed that
Annexure A12 be not set aside.
4. I have examined the afore submissions
and have also gone through Annexure A12.
5. Prima facie, I cannot find from Annexure
A12 that parties have been heard by the
respondent. This may be an omission from the
hands of the respondent to record so,
specifically as stated by Shri.Sunil Kumar
Kuriakose, learned Government Pleader, but
ex-facie I cannot find anything from the
materials to show that parties had been heard.
That apart, there is a specific contention
advanced by Shri.P.R.Shaji, on behalf of his
client, that going by the statutory prescriptions
relating to pension, it is not the legal heirs
who are entitled to it, but only to the legally
wedded wife. His argument is that, even if late
Raghavan Ezhuthachan has children from other
marriages, it would not avail to them to claim
the pension, since his client alone is his
legally wedded wife.
6. I find that this aspect has not also
been specifically adverted to by the Authority
and am, thus certainly of the view that Annexure
A12 cannot be granted imprimatur as it stands
today.
7. Presumably, discerning my mind as afore,
Shri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Government
Pleader, submitted that if this Court is so
inclined, the Authority is willing to rehear the
parties and issue a fresh order and prayed that
such liberty be afforded to him.
8. When I consider the afore submissions,
it is without doubt that I cannot find Annexure
A12 to have been issued in implicit compliance
with the directions of this Court and obviously,
therefore, I am persuaded to accept the
suggestion of the learned Government Pleader that
the matter be reconsidered by the Authority
leading to a fresh order.
9. In the afore circumstances, I record the
submission of Shri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose,
learned Government Pleader, that Annexure A12
order will be withdrawn and that a fresh one will
be issued, after hearing the parties, as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later than
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
This contempt case is thus closed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/28.6
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 698/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED/TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED 09/12/2020 IN WP(C)
NO.25385/2020.
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
18/12/2020 SHOWING THE SENDING OF
ANNEXURE A1 JUDGMENT.
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE A1.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ALONG
WITH LIST OF DOCUMENTS SENT BY THE
PETITIONER'S COUNSEL, TO THE
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICES DATED
16/02/2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT N0.1913/1984 OF
OTTAPPALAM SUB REGISTRY TO PROVE THE
EXISTENCE RELATIONSHIP OF THE
PETITIONER WITH HIS DECEASED HUSBAND.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY LATE
RAGHAVAN EZHUTHACHAN ON 11/03/2018.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTO COPY OF CONSENT
LETTER OF RAGHAVAN EZHUTHACHAN,
ADDRESSED TO ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
THROUGH HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF MUNSIFF
COURT, OTTAPPALAM IN O.S.143/2013.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
28/3/2019 WITH NO.241/19 ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, VANIYAMKULAM VILLAGE.
ANNEXURE A11 CERTIFICATE DATED 04/12/2010 ISSUED BY
THE PRESIDENT OF MANNUR GRAMA
PANCHAYAT TO THE EFFECT THAT RENUKA IS
THE DAUGHTER OF RAGHAVAN EZHUTHACHAN
AND BALAMANI.
ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
26/02/2021 WITH NO.A/1792/2020 OF THE
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
MC
(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE
