IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1741 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.MADHUSOODANA MENON, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 39 YEARS, RES. AT KARATHEZHATH HOUSE, VANDANAM P.O., PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.RAMACHANDRA PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SRI. AJAYAKUMAR, WORKING AS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY HOLDING FULL ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATI VE REFORMS (C) DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Cont. Case(C).No.1741 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT 1.This application filed alleging willful disobedience of the direction contained in the judgment has been examined quite elaborately to find out whether it could be held specifically that there is any willful disobedience or negligence in abiding and giving effect to the directions in the judgment. Unless a contumacious conduct in that regard is made out, it may not be appropriate to conclude that contempt is made out. 2.The materials on record did not suggest many things. The petitioner shows Annexure A9 and states that it is an incomplete document even with the government officials. He has with him Annexure A10, produced along with I.A.640/09. He says that it relates to an appointment made in 2004. The official respondents have placed their version, including detailed statement. COC.1741/08 2 3.An indepth inquiry to find out whether the mode of compliance of the directions issued is appropriate or whether the conclusion arrived at by the establishment following the directions is proper and correct is not within the realm of the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act. Obviously, this Court cannot also exclude the petitioner from adjudicating his grievances before the competent authority, including courts, even on the basis of materials which he made avail through the approximation of the Right to Information Act, which, the petitioner says that he would be resorted to. In the aforesaid situation, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to seek relief in terms of what is aforesaid and holding that no ground reason is found to proceed further with this matter, this contempt case is closed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.25/02.