IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 775 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.12556/2008 Dated 20/03/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.A.K.B. SADHBHAVANA MISSION TRUST, SARADHA HEALTH CENTRE, KOYILANDY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANAGER DR. SANU JOHN, KOVOOR, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. K.A. ELIAS. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.P.G.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- VISHWAS MEHTA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.B. HOOD THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Contempt of Court Case NO. 775 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT This Contempt Petition is referred to this Court by a learned single Judge of this Court stating that contempt if any is against Annexure A2 judgment issued by me on 5.3.2007. Counsel for the petitioner contended that even though this Court declared the petitioner's right to admit students in the educational institution by following any reasonable procedure, Government has issued an order in violation of this declaration. However, on going through the judgment, I notice that declaration is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court and without reference to facts of petitioner's case. In other words, it is only a general proposition laid down by this Court. However, in the operative portion of the judgment this court directed the Government to fix the qualification for admission and the date for commencement of the course, which was to start shortly after the judgment. On these matters, petitioner cannot have any grievance because there is another order issued by the Govt. subsequent to the 2 judgment of this Court. In the circumstances, this contempt case is closed leaving freedom to the petitioner to challenge any fresh orders issued by the Government subsequent to the judgment. However, closure of this contempt case does not bar the petitioner from filing contempt petition for violation of any other judgment. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3