Kerala High Court
M.M. Thomas vs M.K. Anil Kumar on 28 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA, 1943
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1969 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 30250/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:
M.M. THOMAS,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, MADATHINAMATTATHIL HOUSE, KANNAVAM P.O.,
KAICHERI, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 650.
BY ADVS.
M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
BALU TOM CHERUVALLY
BEJOY JOSEPH P.J.
GOVIND G. NAIR
BONNY BENNY
RESPONDENTS:
1 M.K. ANIL KUMAR
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. LATE RAMAN, RESIDING AT NANDANAM, EDAKKAD P.O.,
KANNUR 670 663.
2 C.K. MINEESH,
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. LATE NARAYANAN, MAVILAKANDY HOUSE, CHIRAKKAL
P.O., KANNUR 670 011.
BY ADVS.
K.ASHIS
R.MAHESH VARMA
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CON.CASE(C) NO.1969/2021 2
JUDGMENT
This Contempt of Court case has been filed by
the 4th respondent in W.P(C)No.30250 of 2019,
alleging that writ petitioners had made several
incorrect submissions, which have been recorded in
the judgment in question; and also that,
subsequently, a criminal case was filed against him,
even though it was affirmed before this Court that
only civil remedies had been initiated.
2. I have heard Shri.M.Ramesh Chander, learned
Senior Counsel, instructed by Shri.Balu Tom
Cheruvally, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Shri.Ashis K., learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
3. Shri.Ashis K. submitted that the allegations
in this contempt case are wholly untenable because
it was always available to his clients to initiate
appropriate remedies against the petitioner herein,
as and when the cause of action arose. He submitted
that criminal proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner herein only subsequent to the judgment of
this Court and therefore, that, by no stretch of
imagination, can it ever be alleged that his clients
have committed Contempt of Court.
4. I must say that I find some force in the
afore submissions made on behalf of the respondents
because this Court had earlier recorded the
contentions of the respondents/writ petitioners, as
voiced by their learned counsel, in paragraph 6 of
the judgment in question. However, there was no
specific finding.
5. In any event of the matter, since the
respondents say that they have initiated criminal
proceedings against the petitioner subsequent to the
judgment, I cannot see how he can allege contempt to
have been committed by the respondents to the
directions of this Court.
In the afore circumstances, I close this
Contempt Case; however, leaving full liberty to the
petitioner to invoke every other remedy that may be
available to him in law; for which purpose, I
clarify that I have not considered any of the rival
contentions on its merits and that they are all left
open.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/28.1
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1969/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITIONER CIVIL
NO. 30250/2019 WITHOUT EXHIBITS.
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO. 30250/2019 DATED 25.11.2019.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
1546/2021 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION
DATED 21.09.2021.
Annexure A4 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.
1418/2021 DATED 22.10.2021 OF THE COURT
OF SESSION THALASSERY.
Annexure A5 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
(WITHOUT THE ANNEXURES) BEFORE THE
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE WITH COPY TO
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KANNUR AND
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KANNUR
DATED04.10.2021.
Annexure A6 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.P(Crl.)NO.245/2021 DATED 12.11.2021.
RESPONDENT EXHIBIT
ANNEXURE R1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY
THE SECOND RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KANNUR
DATED 21.09.2021.
