For Information Purpose Only vs Mr.Manoj Ahuja
2021 Latest Caselaw 10899 Ker

Con.Case(C) 577/2021                          1/3



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                           Present:

                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

                 Wednesday,the 31st day of March 2021/10th Chaithra, 1943
               Contempt Case(Civil) No.577/2021(S) in WP(C) No.1204/2020

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
            For information purpose only
      SHARMAL JAMES,AGED 24 YEARS,
      S/O. JAMES ANTONY, KUMBLUMOOTIL HOUSE,
      POOZHITHODE POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

         BY ADVOCATE SRI.MINTU CHERIYAN.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1.    MR.MANOJ AHUJA,
      CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
      (AN AUTONOMOUS ORGANISATION UNDER THE MINISTRY OF
      HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT), HEAD OFFICE,
      NO. 2 SHIKSHA KENDRA COMMUNITY CENTRE PREET VIHAR,
      NEW DELHI 110 092.
2.    K. SRINIVASAN, REGIONAL OFFICER,
      CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
      REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW NO. 2 (OLD NO. 1630- A)
      J BLOCK, 16TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR (WEST)
      CHENNAI 600 040.

         SRI.NIRMAL. S., STANDING COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT.


           This Contempt Of Court Case (civil) having come up for orders
on 31/03/2021,the Court on the same day passed the following:
                        RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J
                        --------------------------------
                       Cont.Case (C)No.577 of 2021
                                       in
                          W.P.(C) No.1204 of 2020
                         -------------------------------
                   Dated this the 31st day of March, 2021
           For information
                      ORDER

purpose only

This contempt case is filed alleging non compliance of the directions issued by

this Court in judgment dated 30.11.2020 in W.P.(C).No.1204 of 2020.

2. Sri.Nirmal S, the learned counsel points out that in the statement filed by the

respondents 1 and 2, they had taken a different stand that the Regional Officer,

Thiruvananthapuram is the person authorised to effect corrections in the marklists

issued from the year 2014 onwards. It was pointed out that the concerned Regional

Officer was not made a party to the proceedings. As directed by this Court, an

application for impleading the Regional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram was filed on

30.11.2020. However the same was not numbered and was not brought to the notice

of this Court when the matter was taken up and disposed of on 30.11.2020. It is

submitted that the respondents are finding it difficult to comply with the directions

without the Regional Officer in the array of parties.

3. In view of the submissions, the judges papers in W.P.(C).No.1204 of 2020 was

called for. It appears that no such application was pending before this Court when the

judgment was delivered on 30.11.2020.

4. On enquiry with the Registry it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Cont.Case (C)No.577 of 2021

W.P.(C) No.1204 of 2020

application was not numbered as it was defective and since the case was disposed of

on 30.11.2020, it could not be brought to the notice of this Court.

5. In the interest of justice, the judgment dated 30.11.2020 in W.P.(C).No.1204

For information purpose only of 2020 is suo moto recalled.

6. I direct the Registry to post W.P.(C).No.1204 of 2020 on 07.04.2021 along

with Cont. Case(C).No.577 of 2021.

Post on 07.04.2021.

Sd/-

                                                RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
                                                           JUDGE
Sru




                                        /true copy/        Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR