Kerala High Court
Prasad K vs Sri. Devarajan Bhaskaran on 27 October, 2025
Cont.Case (C).No.2113/2025
1
2025:KER:79934
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CON.CASE(C) NO. 2113 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN WP(C) NO.23785 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 08.07.2024
PETITIONER/ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT IN WRIT PETITION(C)IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER IN IA 1/2024:
PRASAD K
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.LATE KARUNAKARAN, CHALIL PUTHENCODE, KANJIRAKODU CHERY,
MULAVANA PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691503
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SHRI.ABDUL SALIM M.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION(C):
SRI. DEVARAJAN BHASKARAN
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.LATE BHASKARAN, MANGALASSERY KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU,
KANJIRACODE, MULAVANA PO, KOLLAM,, PIN - 691503
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOMY K. JOSE
SHRI.MUHAMMED ANSHIF T.K.
SHRI.P.DEEPAK (SR.)
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont.Case (C).No.2113/2025
2
2025:KER:79934
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th of October, 2025
1. This Contempt Case is filed by the Respondent No.5 in a pending
Writ Petition - W.P.(C) No. 23785/2024 against the Respondent who
is the petitioner therein. The allegation is that the Respondent,
without obtaining an Order from this Court, started dispensing fuel
from the outlet established by the Respondent in violation of
Annexure A2 Interim Order dated 08.07.2024 in the said Writ
Petition.
2. The Respondent wanted to establish a petroleum outlet and
obtained a Letter of Intent dated 19.08.2007 from the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited. In the process of establishing the outlet, the
Respondent obtained Provisional Permission dated 24.08.2021 for
access out from the National Highway from the Trivandrum Regional
Officer of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) for
a period of one year. On the expiry of the said period of one year,
the Executive Engineer of PWD NH Division, Kollam, issued
Annexure A1 Stop Memo dated 14.03.2024 to the concerned officer
2025:KER:79934
of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited to stop construction activities
of the petroleum outlet of the Respondent till obtaining the Extension
of Time approval from the Trivandrum Regional Officer of MoRTH.
The Respondent challenged Annexure A1 Stop Memo in W.P.(C)
No.23785/2024, and this Court passed Annexure A2 Interim Order,
permitting the Petitioner to go on with the balance work, subject to
the condition that the actual dispensing of fuel from the outlet shall
not be commenced without obtaining orders from this Court. When
the Application for extension of time and final NOC submitted by the
Indian Oil Corporation Limited to the Trivandrum Regional Officer of
the MoRTH was not considered, citing the pendency of W.P.(C)
No.23785/2024, the Respondent filed W.P.(C) No.11412/2025
seeking a direction to the Trivandrum Regional Officer of MoRTH to
consider the Application for extension of time and the final NOC.
This Court passed Annexure A3 Interim Order dated 08.04.2025 in
W.P.(C) No.11412/2025 directing the Trivandrum Regional Officer of
MoRTH to consider the Application for extension of time and final
NOC, finding that the Application is liable to be considered
2025:KER:79934
notwithstanding Annexure A2 Interim Order. In compliance with
Annexure A3 Order, the Regional Officer of the MoRTH issued
Annexure R1(a) final NOC dated 26.08.2025 for the Petroleum
outlet of the Respondent.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner herein that in violation of Annexure A2
Interim Order, the Respondent has inaugurated the petroleum outlet
and commenced the dispensation of petroleum on 01.09.2025,
without obtaining an Order for the same from this Court as directed
in Annexure A2, and thus he has committed contempt of court.
4. The Respondent filed an Affidavit dated 15.09.2025 and an
additional Affidavit dated 09.10.2025 in this Contempt Case. In the
Affidavit dated 15.09.2025, the stand of the Respondent is that he
relied on the advice rendered by his counsel that if he had all the
necessary statutory licenses and permissions, he can start
dispensing fuel at the outlet and that he was under the bona fide
belief that all statutory requirements had been complied with and
that there existed no further legal impediment and hence he
inaugurated the outlet on 31.08.2025 and commenced the
2025:KER:79934
dispensing of fuel. He stated that at no point of time did he harbour
any intention to disobey or disregard the Orders of this Court; that
immediately on realizing that Orders had to be obtained from this
Court, he stopped dispensing fuel and closed the outlet, which
remains closed as of now. The Respondent tendered an
unconditional and unqualified apology in the said Affidavit. In the
Additional Affidavit dated 09.10.2025 filed by the Respondent, he
stated that the violation of Annexure A2 Order occurred on account
of his bona fide belief that when all requisite statutory permission
and licenses are obtained by him, he can start the business. In the
Additional Affidavit, the advice of the counsel and his reliance on the
advice were specifically omitted. This Court considered the matter
on 13.10.2025 and passed an Order taking note of the contrary
stand taken by the Respondent in the Affidavits dated 15.09.2025
and 09.10.2025. Though the learned counsel for the Respondent
sought permission to withdraw the Affidavit dated 15.09.2025, the
same was rejected by this Court. In the earlier posting date on
06.10.2025, when the Respondent contended that he could not
2025:KER:79934
properly understand the terms of the Order dated 08.07.2024 due to
ignorance and believing the advice of the counsel, this Court had
directed the Standing Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation to verify
the educational qualification of the Respondent and the Standing
Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation produced the Application
submitted by the Respondent, in which it is seen that the
Respondent graduated with a B.A. in Economics from the University
of Kerala in the year 1983. Relying on the educational qualification
of the Respondent, this Court found that the Respondent is
competent to understand the terms of the Order dated 08.07.2024.
5. Thus, when this Contempt Case is taken for hearing, there are two
Affidavits of the Respondent in answer to the allegations in the
Contempt Case.
6. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. K. Mohanakannan
and learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent, Sri. P. Deepak,
instructed by Adv. Sri. Jomy K. Jose.
7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the
Respondent gave scant regard to Annexure A2 Interim Order of this
2025:KER:79934
Court. This Court ordered in Annexure A2 that the dispensation of
fuel shall not be commenced without obtaining Orders from this
Court. The Order is specific and clear and does not admit any
ambiguity. He is well qualified to understand the Order without the
help of anybody else. The Respondent wilfully and deliberately
violated Annexure A2 Order and started the outlet dispensing fuel
therefrom. The contradictory Affidavits filed by the Respondent in
this Contempt Case would itself reveal the lack of bona fides on the
part of the Respondent. Even today, the Respondent has not sought
any permission from this Court in the pending W.P.(C)
No.23785/2024. On the other hand, after the filing of this Contempt
Case, the Respondent filed I.A. No.3/2025 seeking withdrawal of
W.P.(C) No.23785/2024, suppressing the contempt committed by
him and the pendency of this Contempt of Court case. The conduct
of the Respondent is contumacious, and hence contempt of Court
proceedings are to be initiated against the Respondent for punishing
him in accordance with law.
8. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent
2025:KER:79934
contended that the question to be considered by this Court is
whether the alleged violation of the Respondent is deliberate or
wilful. The facts would clearly disclose that the violation was not
wilful and deliberate but based on a misunderstanding. The learned
Senior counsel invited my attention to the definition of 'civil
contempt' under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
and provisions under Sections 12, 13 and 14 therein and Rule 14 of
the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988. The
learned Senior Counsel contended that, going by the Proviso to
subsection (1) of Section 12, the accused is liable to be discharged
or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made
to the satisfaction of the Court. In the Explanation to subsection (1)
of Section 12, it is provided that an apology shall not be rejected
merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused
makes it bona fide. Senior Counsel contended that the apology
made by the Respondent in the Affidavit with all bona fides is to be
accepted, dropping further proceedings in the matter. There is no
contradiction between the two Affidavits filed by the Respondent. In
2025:KER:79934
the additional Affidavit, the Respondent has not disowned any of his
statements in the first Affidavit. Senior Counsel further contended
with reference to Section 13(a) that only if the Court is satisfied that
the contempt is of a nature that substantially interferes or tends
substantially to interfere with the due course of justice, it is
permissible to impose a sentence for contempt of court. Learned
Senior Counsel cited the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Dinabandhu Sahu v. State of Orissa [(1972) 4 SCC 761], Suresh Chandra
Poddar v. Dhani Ram and Others [(2002) 1 SCC 766], Sushila Raje Holkar v.
Anil Kak [(2008) 14 SCC 392], Chairman, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal
and Another v. SK. Monobbor Hossain and Another [(2012) 11 SCC 761] and
Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajan and Others [(2014) 16 SCC 204] and the
decision of the Bombay High Court in Adarsh Toddy Kamgar Sahakari,
Sanstha, Nagpur and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others [1977 SCC
OnLine Bom 143] in support of his contentions.
9. I have considered the rival contentions.
10. In Annexure A2 Interim Order, this Court had specifically ordered
that dispensing of fuel from the outlet shall not be commenced
2025:KER:79934
without Orders from this Court. Admittedly, the Respondent
inaugurated the petroleum outlet and started dispensing fuel from
the outlet on 31.08.2025 without obtaining any Order from this Court.
The violation of Annexure A2 Interim Order is admitted by the
Respondent. The contention of the Respondent is that the violation
was not deliberate or wilful. In the first Affidavit, the main thrust of
contention is that he happened to violate on account of the advice
tendered by the counsel. In the additional Affidavit, his contention is
that the violation happened on account of his own bona fide belief.
Admittedly, the Respondent had obtained all the requisite
Permissions and NOCs before starting the operation of the
petroleum outlet on 31.08.2025. Annexure R1(a) Final NOC issued
by MoRTH is challenged by the Petitioner by filing W.P.(C)
No.38776/2025 on 17.10.2025. Since the Respondent had procured
all the Licenses/Permissions/NOC required for the petroleum outlet,
if the Respondent had filed an Application for permission to
commence dispensation of fuel, in normal case, this Court would
have permitted it. There was no circumstance to anticipate any
2025:KER:79934
adverse Order from this Court. On issuance of Annexure R1(a) Final
NOC, the Respondent could have brought it to the notice of this
Court, praying to close W.P.(C) No. 23785/2024 as no further Order
is required in the said Writ Petition. In such a case, Annexure A2
Interim Order would have come to an end.
11. In Ram Kishan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in order
to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of
the order is 'wilful'; that the word 'wilful' introduces a mental element
and hence, requires looking into the mind of person/contemnor by
gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind;
that 'Wilful' means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and
deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom;
that it excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or
genuine inability; that wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily
or negligent actions; that the act has to be done with a "bad purpose
or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely";
that wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly,
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently; that it does not include
2025:KER:79934
any act done negligently or involuntarily; that the deliberate conduct
of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do
the same; that therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil
motive on his part; and that even if there is a disobedience of an
order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling
circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to
comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. In Sushila
Raje Holkar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a contemnor
may be punished only when a clear case for contumacious conduct
has been made out. In Chairman, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that contempt jurisdiction
enjoyed by the courts is only for the purpose of upholding the
majesty of the judicial system that exists and that the Courts must
not be hypersensitive or swung by emotions, but must act
judiciously.
12. It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that the
intention of the Respondent was not to circumvent the Annexure A2
Order of this Court. It happened out of negligence or
2025:KER:79934
misunderstanding of the relevant state of affairs. It could have been
either the misunderstanding of the Counsel or the misunderstanding
of the Respondent. In either case, it was not wilful or deliberate. As
a matter of fact, the Respondent had to stop the operation of the
petroleum outlet on the filing of the Contempt Case by the Petitioner,
and the petroleum outlet has remained closed even now. Perhaps,
if the Respondent had obtained a necessary Order from this Court,
the stoppage of the outlet could have been avoided. The
Respondent did not obtain any advantage as a result of not
obtaining any Order from this Court, but it has turned detrimental to
the Respondent. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior
Counsel for the Respondent, I find that there is no material
contradiction between the Affidavit and Additional Affidavit of the
Respondent. In both these Affidavits, he has tendered an
unconditional apology, reporting the stoppage of the petroleum
outlet immediately on getting knowledge of the filing of the Contempt
Case. The Respondent has assured that he will not make such a
mistake in the future, and he shall scrupulously comply with the
2025:KER:79934
directions issued by this Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, I find that even though the Respondent violated the
Annexure A2 Order, the violation was not wilful or deliberate and
only on account of the misunderstanding as stated above. Hence, I
accept the unconditional apology rendered by the Respondent in
this Contempt Case and drop all further proceedings herein.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
jma
2025:KER:79934
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 2113/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, PWD NH DIVISION, KOLLAM DATED 14-3-2024
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 8-7-2024
IN WRIT PETITION(C) NO.23785/2024
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN WRIT PETITION(C)
11412/2025 DATED 8-4-25
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA
KAUMUDI DAILY DATED 1-9-2025
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETROLEUM
OUTLET
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED TO A CUSTOMER BY THE
RESPONDENT DATED 9-9-2025
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a) A true copy of the Final Approval/NOC dated
26.08.2025
Annexure R1(b) A true copy of the photographs of the fuel station
is produced herewith and may be marked
Annexure R1(c) A true copy of the communication letter by the
learned counsel dated 10.09.2025
