Manjula Govind K vs Abdul Razak
2022 Latest Caselaw 8211 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
         FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
                        CON.CASE(C) NO. 678 OF 2022
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18817/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
                                  KERALA
PETITIONER:

              MANJULA GOVIND K
              AGED 42 YEARS
              KORAPATTA HOUSE, MADAKKALLUR ULLERI, KOZHIKODE, WORKING
              AS UPST,
              AUP SCHOOL, ERAMANGALAM, BALUSSERRY, KOZHIKODE, PIN -
              673612

              BY ADVS.
              AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
              TONY AUGUSTINE



RESPONDENTS:

     1        ABDUL RAZAK
              ABDUL RAZAK, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
              PETITIONER,
              NOW WORKING AS THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER,
              BALUSSERRY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673612

     2        ADDL. R2: C. GOVINDAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
              AGED 91 YEARS
              SON OF TRIVIKRAMAN NAMBOOTHIRI, CHADAYAN ILLAM,
              MADAKALLUR, KOZHIKODE-673 323, NOW WORKING AS THE
              MANAGER, AUP SCHOOL, ERAMANGALAM, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE-
              673 612.

              ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15/06/2022 IN
              IA.1/2022 IN COC.678/2022.

              BY ADVS.
              ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
              No Advocate
              GOVERNMENT PLEADER(GP-1)
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 678 OF 2022
                                 2



          R.K.MURALEEDHARAN



OTHER PRESENT:

          SMT. PARVATHY K - GP




     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 678 OF 2022
                               3



                        JUDGMENT

This Contempt Case was filed on the allegation that, in

spite of the directions of this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C)

No.20341 of 2019, no orders have been issued by the

respondent.

2. However, the learned Government Pleader has

produced on record an order issued by the respondent on

25/03/2022, along with a memo dated 18th May, 2022, which is

seen addressed to the Manager of the School asking him to

produce certain additional documents.

3. Sri.Augustine Joseph - learned counsel for the

petitioner, submitted that the certificates mentioned in the

afore mentioned order are all with the Manager and further

that the objections made therein, that there is a difference in

the seal and signature of the Authority in the application

papers, are untenable and without any basis. He thus prayed CON.CASE(C) NO. 678 OF 2022

that necessary action against the respondents be taken forward

by this Court, under the Contempt of Courts Act.

4. Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan - learned counsel appearing

for the 2nd respondent, submitted that his client has not

received the order dated 25/03/2022 from the Assistant

Educational Officer (AEO) until now and that if the said

Authority informs him what are the documents required, he will

have no objection in producing the same, except the

"Antecedent Certificate", which will have to be made available

by the petitioner himself. He submitted that, therefore, if this

Court is so inclined, his client or the authorized representative

is willing to appear before the AEO on a particular date, so that

he can then be told what are the certificates required.

5. Smt.Parvathy K. - learned Government Pleader,

submitted that the documents called for in the order are all

requisite as per law and that the deficiency in the application CON.CASE(C) NO. 678 OF 2022

relating to the seal and signature has been mentioned therein,

so as to alert the Manager. She submitted that, if the Manager

vouches for those in the application, it can be then considered.

6. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is evident

that, as of today, this Court cannot find either of the

respondents guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, since

they appear to have acted in furtherance of the directions of

this Court.

7. As matters now stand, there is an impediment faced

by the petitioner because, some of the documents required by

the AEO have not been yet produced. I am, therefore, of the

view that the AEO must hear both the Manager and the

petitioner on a particular day, so that the documents that are

required to be produced can be informed thus allowing them to

produce it and obtain a final frutition of the directions of this

Court.

CON.CASE(C) NO. 678 OF 2022

8. In the afore circumstances, I direct both the

petitioner and the 2nd respondent or his authorized

representative, to appear before the 1 st respondent at 11.00

a.m. on 5th July, 2022; on which date, or on a date to be fixed

on mutual convenience, said Authority will inform them the

documents that are required to be produced. On such

documents being produced by the petitioner or by the 2nd

respondent, as the case may be, the 1st respondent will

comply with the directions of this Court, de hors the differences

in the signature or seal in the papers submitted by the

Manager, if he vouches for the same during the afore

mentioned hearing.

This Contempt case is thus closed; however, leaving

liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again with a

fresh one, if any of the afore undertakings are violated and or if

final order in terms of the judgment is not issued by the 1 st CON.CASE(C) NO. 678 OF 2022

respondent within a period of two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ANB CON.CASE(C) NO. 678 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 678/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.7.2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.20341/2019

Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 7.1.2020

Annexure3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.7.2021 IN W.P.(C ) NO.18817/2020