IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 95 of 2010(S) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.37012/2009 Dated 22/12/2002 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------ 1. SREEGAYATHRI GOODS CARRIERS PVT.LTD, OPP.KSEB,N.H.BYEPASS,VYTTILA,KOCHI-682 019, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.G.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,S/O.M.K.GOVINDAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS,RESIDING AT 602,MUNDAKKAL APARTMENTS STATUE JUNCTION,TRIPUNITHURA. 2. C.P.MOHANKUMAR,S/O.N.PADMANABHAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS,PROPRIETOR,CARGO CARRYING CORPORATION,NORTH JANATHA ROAD,PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-25. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. SRI.JAMES VARGHESE,FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MR.MOHAMMED HANEESH,FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SMT.SHEELA,FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,TEXT BOOK OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TEXT BOOK BRANCH,PADMAVILAS,FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SRI.T.K.JOSE,FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS SOCIETY, KAKKANAD. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD. R4 BY ADV.SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN(SR.) & ADV.SRI. K.ANAND. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cont.Case(Civil)No.95 of 2010-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioners have an agreement with the State of Kerala for transporting text books to different schools. They filed the writ petition on the premise that the documents impugned therein would affect the current contract. The learned Government Pleader then submitted that the arrangement proposed in Ext.P1 is intended only to manage the supply of books from the next financial year, i.e., 1.4.2010. This was recorded and the writ petition closed. This application under the Contempt of Courts Act is filed on the allegation that the society which was the fourth respondent in the writ petition has transferred its goods in its vehicle to its godown and therefore, it is apprehended that the COC95/2010 -: 2 :- agreement between the State and the petitioners would be violated. This is totally a misconceived basis for invoking jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act. Not only that, even if there is violation of the terms of a contract by the Government, it will be open to the petitioners to seek relief against the Government before the civil court in accordance with the law relating to the contracts and damages. At any rate, no case of any wilful neglect or disobedience of any of the directions or undertakings is made out. This case fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/2201