IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 383 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.858/2010 Dated 12/01/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- PANNIVIZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, LTD.NO.891, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, ADOOR, PANNIVIZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA. VIDHU, S/O.KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 42. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M.K.RADHAMANI, W/O.(NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT YMCA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------- Cont. Case (C)No.383 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 6th April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner-bank is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The Managing Committee of the petitioner-bank adopted a resolution on 29.9.2009 whereby it was resolved to request the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pathanamthitta to re-classify the bank as a Class I Special Grade bank with effect from 1.4.2008. By Annexure A1 judgment delivered on 12.1.2010 in W.P.(C)No.868 of 2020, this Court directed the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to consider the request made by the petitioner-bank in Ext.P7 representation and to take a decision thereon after affording the Secretary of the petitioner-bank a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This Court also directed that while taking a decision in the matter, Ext.P10 order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co- operative Societies shall be taken into account and that orders on Ext.P7 should be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This contempt case was filed on 17.3.2010 alleging that notwithstanding the directions in Annexure A1 COC.No.383/2010 2 judgment, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pathanamthitta, the respondent herein, has not considered Ext.P7 and passed orders thereon. 2. When the contempt case came up for admission on 19.3.2010, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions and to file a statement. The respondent has pursuant to the said direction filed an affidavit dated 22.3.2010 and produced along with it Annexure R1(a) order dated 24.2.2010 passed by her declining the request of the petitioner-bank. Annexure R1(a) order was passed on 24.2.2010, within the time limit stipulated by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment. It was passed after hearing the petitioner also. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the averments in the affidavit dated 5.4.2010 sworn to by the Secretary of the petitioner-bank and the documents produced along with it contended that the respondent is guilty of contempt. 3. On going through the pleadings and after hearing the submissions made at the Bar, I am satisfied that no grounds have been made out to entertain this contempt case. The respondent has within the time limit stipulated by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment passed Annexure R1(a) order produced along with the counter affidavit. The respondent has in the said order given reasons COC.No.383/2010 3 justifying the conclusion arrived at by her. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, their remedy is in my opinion to challenge the same in other appropriate proceedings. As noticed earlier, this contempt case was filed on 17.3.2010, more than three weeks after Ext.R1(a) order was passed alleging that the respondent has not passed orders within the time limit stipulated by this Court. The alleged act of contempt is the respondent's failure to comply with the directions issued by this Court within the time limit stipulated by this Court. On the admitted facts, it cannot be said that the respondent has committed any act in contempt of this Court warranting initiation of action against her either under Article 215 of the Constitution of India or under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This contempt case is in my opinion an abuse of the process of the court. It is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.R1(a) order, if so advised, in other appropriate proceedings. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS