Rajesh .R vs Ajith Kumar.S
2024 Latest Caselaw 4784 Ker

Kerala High Court

Rajesh .R vs Ajith Kumar.S on 7 February, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
                    CON.CASE(C) NO. 2914 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35509/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:

             RAJESH R.
             AGED 48 YEARS
             S/O.P.RAJU, 'SANDHYA HOUSE' THONDANKULANGARA WARD
             ALAPPUZHA (MANAGING DIRECTOR UNDER SUSPENSION KERALA
             STATE CASHEW WORKERS APEX INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE
             SOCIETY LIMITED (CAPEX), PIN - 688006
             BY ADVS.
             S.SHANAVAS KHAN
             KALA G.NAMBIAR
             S.INDU


RESPONDENT:

             AJITH KUMAR.S
             (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
             PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES (COIR, HANDLOOM AND
             CASHEW) IIND FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
             BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
             SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP


     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO.2914/2023             2

                              JUDGMENT

When this matter was called today, learned Government Pleader

- Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, submitted that a Memo has been filed by

him, producing therewith, the order of the respondent dated

29.01.2024, which has been issued in full and complete compliance

with the directions of this Court.

2. Sri.S.Shanavas Khan - learned counsel for the petitioner,

however, vehemently submitted that the new order is only an

'eyewash', intended to get over the rigour of the directions of this

Court because, it does not reflect the issue relating to the

reinstatement of his client which was specifically projected in Ext.P10,

produced along with the writ petition. He pointed out that, when this

Court directed the respondent to complete proceedings pursuant to

the afore mentioned Ext.P10, taking into account all relevant and

germane inputs, then it ought to have been done implicitly and not in

parts and pieces.

3. Even if this Court is to find favour with the afore submissions

of Sri.S.Shanavas Khan, it is indubitable that his contention cannot be

tested forensically when I act under the Contempt of Court

jurisdiction. When this Court directed the respondent to complete

proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 produced in the writ petition,

obviously, it was expected that they will do so as per law; but if they

have not done so, then it is for the petitioner to challenge the same

appropriately, for which, liberties are always available.

In the afore circumstances, I close this Contempt Case with the

afore liberty being reserved to the petitioner; for which purpose, all

contentions in that regard are also left undecided.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/7.2

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 2914/2023

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09/06/2023 IN W.P. (C) NO. 35509/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure- B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/10/2023 IN CON.CASE (C) NO.2151 OF 2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT