Kerala High Court
Bsd Education Society vs Ishita Roy on 1 August, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1947
CON.CASE(C) NO. 788 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2024 IN WA NO.2536 OF 2019 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
BSD EDUCATION SOCIETY,REG. NO. TVM/TC/1099/2014 OLATHANNI,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, W.
SHAJI, S/O. WILSON NADAR, AGED 49 YEARS, BDS EDUCATION
SOCIETY, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695133
BY ADVS.
SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL
SMT.SUNEETHI S.
SHRI.ATHUL ROY
SMT.HELEN P.A.
SHRI.INDRAJITH DILEEP
SMT.AMALA ANNA THOTTUPURAM
DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2:
ISHITA ROY (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER), THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695001
BY ADV NISHA BOSE, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
16.07.2025, THE COURT ON 01.08.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This Contempt Case (Civil) is filed by the appellant in W.A.
No.2536 of 2019 on the file of this Court, under Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging non-compliance of the
directions contained in the judgment dated 04.03.2024 issued by
this Court while allowing the writ appeal.
2. The petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.41845 of 2018,
challenging the Government Order by which the application filed
by the petitioner for permission to start a new Arts and Science
College in the aided sector was rejected. By the judgment dated
02.12.2019, the learned Single Judge upheld the Government
Order and dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the
petitioner filed W.A.No.2536 of 2019 and by the judgment dated
04.03.2024 a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal
directing the State Authority to pass fresh orders keeping in mind
that the object of the petitioner is to establish the College in
Neyyattinkara Taluk where the Nadar community is one of the
dominant communities and the fact that permission has been
granted to SC/ST community as per G.O.(MS)
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
No.572/2021/HEDN. It is alleging non-compliance of the said
direction by the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department,
who was the 2nd respondent in the writ appeal, the present
contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner-appellant.
3. On 27.03.2025, when this contempt case came up for
consideration, at the request of the learned Senior Government
pleader, the case was adjourned to 10.04.2025, making it clear
that if a decision was not taken till that date, it is open to the
respondent to take the decision before the next hearing date.
4. On 10.04.2025, when this contempt case was taken up
for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader
submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench dated
04.03.2024 in W.A.No.2536 of 2019 was complied with and sought
time to place the said fact on record by way of an affidavit.
However, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the judgment was not complied with.
5. Along with a memo dated 07.04.2025, the learned
Senior Government Pleader produced a Government Order dated
06.04.2025 bearing No. G.O.(Rt) No.441/2025/HEDN. It is stated
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
in the memo that in obedience to the directions in the judgment
in the writ appeal, the Government has issued the said Order.
6. On 09.07.2025, after hearing the arguments of the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in part, this Court
directed the Registry to incorporate the Judges' papers in W.A.
No.2536 of 2019 along with this contempt case.
7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-
appellant and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
8. The learned Senior Counsel addressed extensive
arguments inviting our attention to various writ petitions filed by
the petitioner before this Court seeking the relief that was finally
claimed in W.P.(C)No.41845 of 2018 and the various orders passed
by the Government in consequence to the directions issued by this
Court in those writ petitions. According to the learned Senior
Counsel, the order dated 06.04.2025 produced by the learned
Senior Government Pleader, along with the memo dated
07.04.2025, is not in consonance with the direction issued by this
Court in the judgment dated 04.03.2024 in the writ appeal. The
passing of an order not in terms of the letter and spirit of the
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
directions of this Court is a civil contempt, and hence, the
respondent may be proceeded against under the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The learned Senior Counsel relied
on the judgment of the Apex Court in Anjuman-E-Islam v.
State of Karnataka and others [(2001) 9 SCC 465] in support
of his arguments.
9. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
Pleader would argue that by Annexure-1 judgment dated
04.03.2024 in W.A.No.2536 of 2019, this Court directed the
respondent to consider the application of the petitioner on merits
and the manner in which the said application has to be disposed
of is not stated in that judgment. It is clarified by this Court as per
Annexure 5 order dated 18.11.2024 in I.A. No. 2 of 2024 filed by
the State for extension of time to comply with the directions in the
judgment dated 04.03.2024 in W.A.No.2536 of 2019 that the
decision to start an aided college is a policy decision of the
Government. In view of that order granting extension of time, the
contempt case previously filed by the petitioner as Contempt
Case(C)No.2080 of 2024 was closed by Annexure 6 order dated
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
18.11.2024. The Government took a decision as directed in the
judgment in the writ appeal by G.O.(Rt)No.441/2025/HEDN dated
06.04.2025, and there is no prima facie case to proceed against
the respondent under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act
1971. In support of her arguments, the learned Senior
Government Pleader relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand [(2004) 7
SCC 261] and that of this Court in Rajappan Nair v. Stephen
Joseph [2005 (2) KLT 345].
10. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though by
Annexure-1 judgment dated 04.03.2024 in W.A. No.2536 of 2019,
this Court directed the respondent to consider the application of
the petitioner to start an aided Arts and Science College at
Neyyattinkkara Taluk, the same was rejected by the Government,
which is against the implied direction in the said judgment to allow
the application of the petitioner.
11. The issue to be considered in this contempt case is
whether the judgment dated 04.03.2024 in W.A.No. 2536 of 2019
directs the respondent to dispose of the application filed by the
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
petitioner to start an aided College of Arts and Science, in a
particular manner and whether the order dated 06.04.2025 issued
by the Government bearing No.G.O.(Rt) No.441/2025/HEDN
violates the said direction which will attract the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, so as to find a prima facie case of
civil contempt against the respondent?
12. As per Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, Contempt of Court means civil contempt or criminal
contempt. As per Section 2(b), civil contempt means willful
disobedience to judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other
process of a court, or the willful breach of an undertaking given to
a court. In the instant case, we are concerned about the civil
contempt, since the allegation against the respondent is that she
wilfully did not comply with the direction in the judgment of this
Court in W.A.No.2536 of 2019. Therefore, we are not entering into
the details of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of
the Act.
13. Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides for
punishment for contempt of Court. The procedure to be followed
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
when the contempt is on the face of the Supreme Court or the
High Court is provided under Section 14 of the Contempt Act.
Section 15 deals with cognisance of criminal contempt, other than
the cases covered in section 14. Section 16 speaks about the
contempt by a Judge, Magistrate or other person acting judicially.
Section 17 deals with the procedure after cognizance of a criminal
contempt under Section 15. Section 19 of the Act provides for
appeals.
14. By virtue of power under Article 215 of the Constitution
of India and Section 23 of the Contempt Act, the Kerala High
Court has framed the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala)
Rules 1988, which deals with the procedural aspects. Rule 4
mentions how the parties to a contempt proceedings have to be
described. Rule 5 describes the contents of a contempt petition.
Rule 6 says that every proceeding for contempt shall be dealt with
by a Bench of not less than two Judges, and this Rule was
subsequently struck down by a Division Bench of this Court in
Jyothilal K. R., IAS and Another v. Mathai M. J. [ 2014 (1)
KLT 147]. Rule 7 deals with the procedure for the initiation of
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
suo motu proceedings, and Rule 8 deals with reference by a
Subordinate Court alleging contempt and the enquiry to be made
by the High Court before making a reference under Section 15 of
the Act about the circumstances leading to the reference. Rule 9
deals with the preliminary hearing and notice. The procedure after
issuance of notice is dealt with under rules 10 to 17. As per Rule
10, service of notice shall be effected in the manner specified in
the Rules of the High Court or in such other manner as may be
directed by the Court. Rule 12 deals with the appearance of the
respondent, and Rule 13 deals with the reply by the respondent.
Rules 14 to 17 deal with hearing, trial and execution of sentence.
15. We have perused the paper book in W.A. No.2536 of
2019 incorporated by the Registry as directed on 09.07.2025.
From the materials on record, we notice that the request for
starting an aided Arts and Science College was made by the
petitioner to the Government by Ext.P3 representation dated
08.02.2016 for the academic year 2016-2017. Seeking a direction
to the respondent to consider that representation, the petitioner
approached this Court for the first time by filing W.P.(C)No.6345
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
of 2016. By Ext.P4 judgment dated 19.02.2016, this Court
directed the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department,
Government Secretariat to consider that representation within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that
judgment. By Ext.P5 order dated 19.05.2016, the Government
rejected that request, holding that the Government have
examined the matter in detail in consultation with DCE and found
that there is no need to start a new aided Arts and Science College
in the proposed area as there are sufficient Arts and Science
Colleges around the proposed area.
16. Again, the petitioner approached this Court against
Ext.P5 decision by filing W.P.(C)No.18946 of 2016. By Ext.P6
judgment dated 10.08.2016, this Court allowed the writ petition
and quashed Ext.P5 order of the Government and further directed
the Government to consider Ext.P3 representation afresh with
notice to the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
that judgment. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of that judgment read thus;
"4. From the materials available on record, it is not clear
whether the Government have accorded sanction to any
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
community to establish a college in the aided sector without
assessing the educational need of the locality. If the
Government have granted permissions to establish colleges
without conducting a study as to the need of the locality
especially in the aided sector, the said permissions would be
per se illegal. If the Government evolves a policy to grant
permission to backward communities to establish colleges
in the aided sector, the same can be sanctioned only in an
area where there exists a need. In the circumstances, even
if it is taken that the Government have accorded sanction to
other organisations to establish colleges in the aided sector
without conducting a study as to the need of the locality,
this Court cannot direct the Government to consider the
case of the petitioner without conducting a study as to the
need of the locality, for, the same would amount to
extension of the benefit of the illegality to the petitioner.
5. It is seen that the stand taken by the Government in
Ext.P5 is that there are four colleges in the proposed area
and that therefore there is no need to establish a new
college in the area. Ext.P3 request submitted by the
petitioner would indicate that the petitioner has sought
permission to establish a college at Neyyattinkara. The
specific case of the petitioner is that out of the four colleges
referred to in Ext.P5, three colleges are not situated at
Neyyattinkara. Ground A of the writ petition reads thus:
"A. The report of the 3rd respondent Director of
collegiate education that there are four
aided/Government colleges functioning around the
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
proposal area is factually incorrect and ill-conceived.
Two out of the four colleges referred to in his report and
extracted in Exhibit-P5, i.e. the VTM NSS College,
Dhanuvachapuram and the KNM Government College,
Kanjiramkulam are situated in other Assembly
constituencies in the district viz., Parassala and
Kovalam constituencies and the 3 rd one i.e., Christian
College, Katakkada is situated in a different Taluk viz.
the Nedumangad Taluk. In the Neyyattinkara Assembly
constituency there is only one Arts and Science College,
i.e. the Government Arts & Science College, Kulathur
which cannot cater to the need of any particular
backward community. Therefore Exhibit-P5 is
unreasonable."
The facts pleaded in the said paragraph are not seen
controverted by the Government. The report relied on by
the Government to take the impugned decision is also not
placed on record. Ext.P5 order does not indicate that the
petitioner was heard by the Government to ascertain the
place where they propose to start the college. It is thus
evident that Ext.P5 decision has been taken without
comprehending the exact place where the petitioner
proposes to establish the college and without conducting a
study as to the need of that locality. In the circumstances, I
am of the view that the matter needs to be considered by
the Government afresh.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 order is
quashed and the Government is directed to consider Ext.P3
request afresh with notice to the petitioner and take
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
appropriate decision thereon, within six weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment."
17. In pursuance to Ext.P6 judgment, the Government
passed Ext.P7 order dated 11.11.2016, however, again rejecting
the request of the petitioner. In that order, it was held that one of
the prerequisites for starting a college is the ownership of 5 acres
of encumbrance-free land. The petitioner has produced only a
lease deed, and the same is just for five years. It is also stated in
that order that starting a new college under the aided sector will
put a huge financial commitment to the State, and an amount of
Rs.10 crore is the estimated financial commitment during the first
year itself.
18. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, by
relying on Ext.P9 study report submitted by the Deputy Director
of Collegiate Education, submitted that Ext.P7 order does not
reflect the opinion given in Ext.P9 report correctly. To reject the
application of the petitioner, a distorted version of Ext.P9 report is
stated in Ext.P7 Government Order. Challenging Ext.P7, the
petitioner again filed W.P.(C)No.41372 of 2016. By Ext.P13
judgment dated 17.10.2017, this Court disposed of that writ
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
petition setting aside Ext.P7 and directing the Government to
consider Ext.P3 request based on Ext.P9 study report. Paragraphs
10, 11 and 12 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;
"10. It is distressing and disconcerting to note that the
Government despite a detailed judgment at Ext.P9 has
considered the matter with abject levity and without any
reference to the points specifically referred to in Ext.P6. The order
has also been passed after a contempt was initiated before this
Court, hurriedly, in order to escape from the clutches of the
contempt jurisdiction of this Court. The compliance of judgments
passed by this Court is not to be confined to the time frame
stipulated by this Court to arrive at a decision. When this Court
passes a judgment directing consideration of an issue and also
makes observations on the relevant factors to be looked into that
shall be looked into scrupulously. An order passed ignoring the
relevant aspects as noticed by this Court would also fall within the
ambit of the definition of a deliberate contempt. A reading of
Ext.P6 judgment would clearly indicate that the consideration was
directed to be made on the specific education need of the area
and if at all the need was absent then the rejection should have
been based on that.
11. If the need existed as is now seen from Ext.P9, then the
further requirements regarding ownership of land and so on and
so forth could have been directed by the Government. Prima facie
it has to be observed that the affiliating University does not have
a condition for ownership of 5 Acres of encumbrance free land
and in such circumstance it was highly improper of the
Government to have declined the representation for that reason.
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
The financial implication has also not been properly quoted in the
order as found from the study; and is a a blatant
misrepresentation of the estimated figures which estimate has
been made by a competent Officer of the Government.
12. In such circumstances, this Court would set aside Ext.P7
finding the consideration to be not in accordance with Ext.P6. A
further consideration shall be made by the Government within
three months based on Ext.P9 and if required a further study on
the educational need with reference to the facts as noticed in
Exhibit P9. Educational need shall be the consideration at the first
instance and then the further issues of essential requirements and
the financial viability too; the last of which is in the exclusive
premise of the Government.
The writ petition is disposed of with a further direction to comply
with the directions issued within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment."
19. Subsequent to Ext.P13 judgment, a need analysis was
conducted by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education again
and submitted Ext.P14 report dated 08.02.2018. After Ext.P14
report, the Government passed Ext.P16 order bearing
No.G.O.(Rt)No.696/2017/H.Edn dated 06.04.2018, once again
rejecting the application of the petitioner. The said report was
challenged in W.P.(C)No.41845 of 2018.
20. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, the Government has taken different stand on different
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
occasions in order to avoid granting permission to the petitioner
to start an Arts and Science College, especially for the benefit of
a particular backwards community. After initially holding that the
Government is intending to grant permission to start new colleges
only in the co-operative sector and not in the aided sector, a
college for SC/ST was granted by the Government. From the
judgments passed by this Court on different occasions in the writ
petitions filed by the petitioner, it is evident that the intention
behind those judgments is to grant permission to the petitioner to
start an aided college of Arts and Science.
21. The learned Senior Government Pleader at this
juncture submitted that if this Court had such an intention, the
writ petitions would have been allowed, directing the Government
to grant permission as requested in Ext.P3 application, after
completing the procedural formality. When the Government is
directed to take a proper decision, that means the decision has to
be taken after considering all the facts and circumstances, since it
is a policy decision of the Government.
22. From the materials on record, we notice that after
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
Ext.P13 judgment, the petitioner has approached this Court by
filing Contempt Case(C) No.472 of 2018. By Ext.P18 Reference
Order, the learned Single Judge referred that contempt case to the
Division Bench for consideration. However, by the judgment dated
03.12.2019, the Division Bench closed that contempt petition as
infructuous.
23. In Anjuman-E-Islam v. State of Karnataka and
others [(2001) 9 SCC 465], the request of the appellant was to
grant affiliation to the College of Education in Teachers Training
(B.Ed) to be established by the appellant therein. When
Government of Karnataka rejected the request, the appellant filed
a Writ Petition in the High Court for the issue of writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to grant affiliation to the College.
Though the Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court directed the
Government to reconsider the request of the appellant, it was
again rejected on the ground that the policy of the Government
does not permit the grant of affiliation to start any new B.Ed
college. The appellant again approached the High Court with the
second writ petition where in by observing that there had been
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
failure on the part of the Government to discharge its statutory
duties and the appellant was discriminated against when
permission was said to have been granted to several other
institutions, the High Court of Karnataka directed the Government
to consider the matter afresh. However, the request was again
rejected by the Government. This time, both the learned Single
Judge as well as the Division Bench dismissed the Writ Petition
and the appeal filed by the appellant following the earlier Division
Bench judgment of the same Court. Considering the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court allowed the appeal
filed by the appellant, and directed the Government of Karnataka
to consider and accord affiliation as claimed by the appellant at
least from the next academic year.
24. In the instant case we are on the point of Contempt if
any committed by the respondent, while passing the impugned
Ext.P16 order. The facts and circumstances of the instant case are
different from that of Anjuman-E-Islam [(2001) 9 SCC 465].
Therefore, the said decision has no application to the facts of the
case in our hand.
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
25. In Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand
[(2004) 7 SCC 261] the appellant filed an application under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short
the 'Act') read with Art.215 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in
short the 'Constitution') alleging non compliance of the directions
given by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in CWJC
No.1120 of 1998 by the order dated 30.03.1999. A learned Single
Judge of the said High Court, while dealing with the application for
initiation of contempt proceedings, has passed the judgment
holding that it would not be proper to take any action for
contempt. Though learned Single Judge noticed that the scope of
consideration while dealing with an application for initiation of
contempt proceedings was confined to the question whether there
was compliance with the order or not, yet proceeded to examine
the correctness of the order and called upon the parties to satisfy
him that the direction of the kind contained in the order dated
30.03.1999 could be issued. After an in-depth analysis, the
learned Single Judge held that the directions could not have been
given and therefore there was no scope for taking any action for
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
contempt. When that judgment was challenged before the Apex
Court, it was held thus;
If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its
opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is
neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either
approach to the Court that passed the order or invoke
jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness
of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right
or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of
the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While
dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot
traverse beyond the order, non compliance of which is
alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have
been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse
beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of
the order or give additional direction or delete any direction.
That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing
with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings.
The same would be impermissible and indefensible.
(Underline Supplied)
26. In Rajappan Nair v. Stephen Joseph [2005 (2)
KLT 345], the challenge before the Division Bench of this Court
was against the further direction issued by the learned Single
Judge holding that there is no clarity in the judgment in the writ
petition. The Division Bench, by relying on Prithawi Nath Ram
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
[(2004) 7 SCC 261] held that the learned Single Judge in
contempt case can only examine as to whether the direction
already given by the learned Single Judge has been complied with
or not. In a contempt case no positive direction can be given, lest
it would be beyond the jurisdiction of contempt Court exercising
powers under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act,
1971 read with Rule 6 of the Contempt of Court (High Court of
Kerala) Rules.
27. As noticed herein above, in none of the judgments
passed by this Court, the respondent was directed to consider the
application of the petitioner in a particular manner. It is true that
in the judgment dated 04.03.2024 in W.A.No.2536 of 2019, this
Court directed the Government to pass fresh orders keeping in
mind the object of the appellant is to establish the college in
Neyyattinkara Taluk, where the Nadar community is one of the
dominant communities and the fact that, permission has been
granted to SC/ST community as per G.O.(Ms)No.572/2021/HEDN.
However, in paragraphs 4 to 6 of Annexure A5 order dated
18.11.2024, the Division Bench of this Court made the following
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
observation:
"4. The learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that
the instance of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
Educational Trust cannot be ipso facto made applicable to
the Appellant/Petitioner who is an educational society of the
Other Backward Class and therefore, this would require a
policy decision.
5. Considering that a policy decision in that regard is
required and that the judgment delivered by the Division
Bench did not stipulate a time period, we are of the opinion
that time needs to be granted to the State to take a decision
as directed by the judgment dated 4 March 2024. However,
time of one year sought, according to us, is not reasonable.
6. Therefore, we allow the application for extension filed by
the State and grant four months' time from today to decide
the policy and consider the application of the
Appellant/Petitioner. We make it clear that we have not
directed as to how a decision of the Appellant/Petitioner's
application is to be taken."
28. From the appreciation of the materials on record and
the arguments addressed at the Bar, we notice that in the
judgment dated 04.03.2024 in W.A.No.2536 of 2019, this Court
did not direct the Government to pass the order in the application
filed by the petitioner in a particular manner. If the intention
behind the order was to allow the application of the petitioner
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
without considering the attending circumstances, then this Court
would have made it clear in black and white that, while taking a
decision, the application of the petitioner has to be allowed. In the
absence of such a clear direction, while exercising Contempt
jurisdiction, as held in Prithawi Nath Ram [(2004) 7 SCC 261],
it is not possible for this Court to hold that the indication in the
direction issued by this Court in W.A. No.2536 of 2019 was to allow
the application of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is only
to be held that there is no prima facie material to proceed against
the respondent under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971.
In the result, this Contempt Case (Civil) stands dismissed.
However, we make it clear that we have not expressed anything
about the right of the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings
against Ext.P16 order, if he is otherwise entitled.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
Con.Case(C)No.788 of 2025 2025:KER:57089
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 788/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
04.03.2024 IN W.A. NO. 2536 OF 2019
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED
11.03.2024 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE
RESPONDENT
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD ALONG
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2024
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CON. CASE.(C)
Annexure 5 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2024
IN I.A. NO. 2/2024 IN W.A. NO. 2536/2019
Annexure 6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2024 IN
