IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 833 of 2010(S) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19593/2007 DATED 23.1.2009 .................... PETITIONER/PETITONER IN W.P.(C) --------------------------------------- JAYAGIRI JANAKEEYA SAMITHY, SANTHIGIRI,REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, E.T.THOMAS,S/O.THOMAS,EZHUPURAYIL.P.O, ARIVILANJAPOYIL,ALACODE,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------- 1. PRABHAKARAN, THE CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695024. 2. TINKU BISWAL,THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023. 3. RADHAMANI,THE TAHSILDAR(RR), THALIPARAMBA,KANNUR DISTRICT-671321. 4. BABU,THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, THALIPARAMBA PRIMARY CO-0PERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK.LTD.NO.1007,PAYYANNOOR.P.O, KANNUR-670307. 5. M.BALAKRISHNAN,THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,UDAYAGIRI-670671,KANNUR. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ Cont. Case (C) No.833 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19593 of 2007 is the applicant herein. It appears from the records that the abovementioned petitioner is an unregistered body/association of persons. They approached this Court complaining that due to the failure of crops for various reasons the members of the abovementioned unregistered body who are farmers are unable to pay the various amounts borrowed from various banks including co- operative societies, etc. and as a consequence the properties of the members of the abovementioned unregistered body are being brought to sale and therefore sought the various reliefs in the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of by a short judgment. The relevant portion of the judgment (according to us in the context of the contempt case) reads as follows: Cont Case (C) No.833 of 2010 - 2 - “Government has set up Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission. It has got powers to find out the area which is affected and decide whether the petitioners/farmers are entitled to get the benefit etc. and they can also give appropriate reliefs. Therefore, we dispose of the writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach the above Commission. We also direct the Government to disburse the monetary reliefs promised without delay. We also direct that banks and co-operative societies should not be so harsh to poor farmers and try to help them to survive in these difficult times.” 2. In the background of the above order, the instant contempt case is filed complaining that pursuant to the abovementioned order though they have submitted applications to the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission, in the meanwhile the 4th respondent bank issued recovery notices to all the farmers who availed agricultural loans from the bank demanding to remit the entire loan amount in lump sum within 15 days with a further caution that failing the remittance of the amount would result in auctioning of the properties mortgaged for the purpose of securing repayment of the debts borrowed by Cont Case (C) No.833 of 2010 - 3 - each of the farmers and therefore the respondents are guilty of contempt of court by deliberately violating the judgment of this Court dated 23rd January, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.19593 of 2007. 3. On behalf of the first respondent an affidavit is filed in the instant contempt case. It is stated at paragraph 3 of the said affidavit as follows: “It is further submitted that pursuant to the direction in the judgment the Government has taken a decision to grant an exgratia payment of Rs.5000 per acre to the farmers and necessary directions have also been given to the District Collector to ensure that the farmers are not harassed by the banks and co- operative societies for their debts and all revenue recovery steps have been directed to be kept in abeyance until further orders. The above action has been taken and orders issued in this connection on 6.7.2010.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner however argued that in the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent (State of Kerala) in W.P.(C) No.18947 of 2005 the State made the various promises contained at paragraphs 7 to 10 of the said statement and none of those promises was fulfilled by Cont Case (C) No.833 of 2010 - 4 - the State though there was a specific direction while disposing of W.P.(C) No.19593 of 2007 as follows: “We also direct the Government to disburse the monetary reliefs promised without delay.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 'promises' made by the State Government in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the statement filed in W.P.(C) No.18947 of 2005 are the promises referred to by the learned judges in the judgment dated 23rd January, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.19593 of 2007 and those promises have not yet been fulfilled. 5. The above submission of the learned counsel is only to be referred to and rejected. First of all, from the language of the paragraphs 7 to 10 of the statement filed in W.P. (C) No.18947 of 2005 we do not find any legally enforceable promise made by the State Government. The State only mentioned the various proposals made by it seeking assistance of the Government of India for providing reliefs to the farmers. What happened to those proposals thereafter is not yet known. At any rate, there is nothing in the above referred statement Cont Case (C) No.833 of 2010 - 5 - which can be referred to as the promise made by the State of Kerala either to the petitioner or anybody else. Secondly, such a statement was not a statement made in W.P.(C) No.19593 of 2007. The petitioner cannot, in our view, be heard to say that when this Court employed the expression 'promise' in the sentence extracted earlier, it must be referred to the content of the statement made by the State of Kerala in the other writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No.18947 of 2005. 6. On the other hand, in the instant contempt case an affidavit has already been filed on behalf of the State of Kerala, relevant portion of which is already extracted earlier. For the abovementioned reason we do not find any reason to proceed further with this contempt case. Therefore, the contempt case is dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns