IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 1064 of 2011(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.22673/2011 Dated 20/08/2011 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIJAYAN NAMBIAR P.V., AGED 85 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVI KUTTY AMMA, MANAGER, KANIKOLE A.L.P.SCHOOL, P.O.KANKOLE, VIA. PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- A.ANIL KUMAR, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR-670001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI M.A.FAYAZ THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Con.Case(C).No. 1064 of 2011(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT IN WPC.22673/11 DATED 20/8/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER DATED 29/8/2011 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 2(A) TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 1/9/2011. ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15655/11 DATED 15/6/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL \\True copy// P.A to Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Contempt of Court Case No.1064/2011-S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner alleges non compliance of the directions in Annexure-I Judgment dated 20/08/2011. 2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that all aspects have been stated in the affidavit filed by the respondent dated 08/11/2011. Therein it is mentioned that a hearing was held with notice to the petitioner and the Power of Attorney and they did not attend the hearing conducted on 17/10/2011. Reference is made about an injunction order in force, issued by the Munsiff Court, Payyannur in O.S.No.7/2011. Finally, it is mentioned that respondent vide an order dated 18/10/2011 has rejected the request submitted by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Munsiff Court had really no impact on the issue to be decided and therefore, the order rejecting the request cannot be supported. 4. A reading of Annexure-I Judgment shows that C.O.C.No.1064/2011 -:2:- this Court has only directed the respondent to take a decision in the matter. On the merits of the claim of the petitioner, this Court evidently has not expressed any view. 5. In the light of the above, as the respondent has already passed an order in the matter, if the petitioner is aggrieved, he can challenge the same before the appropriate authority as enjoined by the provisions under the Kerala Education Act and Rules. Since the directions in Annexure—I Judgment have been complied with, I find that the allegation that the respondent has acted in violation of the Judgment cannot be supported. Therefore, leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to challenge the order dated 18/10/2011 before appropriate forum, the Contempt of Court Case is disposed of. Sd/- (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ms