IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 Con.APP(C).No. 11 of 2011(S) ---------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2011 IN COC NO.1071 OF 2011 ) APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- K.R.JYOTHILAL, IAS, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.N.RAVEENDRAN, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI V. MANILAL RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER IN COC -------------------------------- GEORGE JACOB, S/O.K.V.JACOB, 51 YEARS, ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, M.G.IVREGS CELL, COMMISSIONER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LMS COMPOUND, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. BY ADV. MR. KALEESWARAM RAJ THIS CONTEMPT APPEAL (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2011, ALONG WITH COC.NO.1071 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. CONTEMPT APPEAL NO.11 OF 2011 & CONTEMPT CASE © No. 1071 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 19th November, 2011 J U D G M E N T MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ. When the Contempt Appeal came up for admission, we called for COC. 1071 of 2011 along with its records, as this Contempt Appeal is against issuance of notice to the appellant herein by the learned single Judge in the Contempt Case. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court . It is a situation where the appellant could have even explained the reason for passing Annexure-III order, subsequent to the disposal of W.P.(C) 19927 of 2011. Instead, he has approached this Court challenging issuance of notice to appear. Though the learned Counsel for the appellant brings to our notice Sec. 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, we are of the opinion that the said provision is not applicable at this stage. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant CONTEMPT APPEAL NO.11 OF 2011 & CONTEMPT CASE © No. 1071 OF 2011 2 tried to convince the Court that the appeal is not maintainable having regard to the fact that only notice to appear was ordered at this stage. 3. When we look at the order of the learned single Judge, especially paragraph 4( last 7 to 8 lines of paragraph 4), it is seen that there is no express direction to do a particular thing by the appellant herein. It is only a passing remark about Ali's case. The direction is to consider Ext.P10 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 4. What is appropriate in the best judgment of the appellant, he has to pass such order. Apparently, Annexure-III is the said order. It is well settled that the contempt petition cannot be treated like an execution proceeding. The duty of the complainant is only to bring to the notice of the Court that such and such contempt is committed by disobeying the direction of the Court, Beyond that, he has no role to play. Strictly speaking, it is a matter between the Court and the contemnor. Therefore, the complainant in the contempt case cannot insist that there is CONTEMPT APPEAL NO.11 OF 2011 & CONTEMPT CASE © No. 1071 OF 2011 3 disobedience of direction of the Court and that the appellant has to be proceeded against with the contempt proceedings. As stated above, we are of the opinion that paragraph No.4 of the learned Single Judge, no doubt, expresses some opinion regarding Ali's case. But ultimately, it was left at the discretion of the appellant to consider and decide Ext.P10. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that both the Contempt Appeal and Contempt Case are to be dropped. Accordingly, they are dropped. It is made clear that none of the observations made hereinbefore would come in the way of the complainant, if he desires to challenge Annexure-III order. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk