IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1541 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.34985/2009 Dated 04/12/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WPC: --------------------------------- K.MOHANAN PILLAI, S/O.M.KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 49 YEARS, WORKING AS SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY THRIKKADAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ANCHALMOODU, PERINADU P.O., KOLLAM AND RESIDING AT GOURI SHANKARAM, MILLENNIUM NAGAR, 101-A, KAVANAD P.O. KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC: ---------------------------------- 1. SHRI. S.M.VIJAYANAND, IAS, NAME OF FATHER AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE STATE OF KERALA, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SHRI.K.R.MURALEEDHARAN, IAS, NAME OF FATHER AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, PUBLIC OFFICES BUILDING, MUSEUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SHRI.M.DHARMAPALAN, NAME OF FATHER AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, ITTIVA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM. 4. SHRI.THOMAS RAJAN, NAME OF FATHER AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, PERFORMANCE AUDIT, UNIT-II, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 5. SHRI.C.P.VINCENT, NAME OF FATHER AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, PERFORMANCE AUDIT UNIT-IV, O/O.THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R. DEEPA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- COC. NO. 1541 OF 2009 (S) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner herein filed WP(c).No.34985/2009 challenging the order dated 30.11.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent herein transferring him from Thrikkadavoor Grama Panchayat, where he was working as Special Grade Secretary and posting him at Ittiva Grama Panchayat. By this order the 3rd respondent, who was working in Ittiva Grama Panchayat was transferred and posted to his place. 2. Going by the averments in this petition, Annexure-I interim order in the writ petition to which respondents 4 and 5 are not parties, was passed by this court on 4.12.2009 and by the said order, the transfer order was stayed for a period of six weeks. The case of the petitioner is that the order was passed around 11 a.m. on 4.12.2009 and his counsel informed about the order. According to him he was present in the Grama Panchayat Office and that while he was so present, the 3rd respondent reported in the office for assuming charge. He refused to comply with the demand to hand over charge in view of Annexure-1 order dated COC.No.1541 /09 :2 : 4.12.2009 passed by this court. According to the petitioner, this was happened immediately after the 3rd respondent reported duty on 4.12.2009 and that thereupon the petitioner informed th 4th respondent about the order passed by this court but however, the 4th respondent refused to comply with the order and deputed the 5th respondent to accompany the 3rd respondent, with directions to assume charge of the post held by the petitioner. It is stated that when the 5th respondent came to his office, the petitioner informed the 5th respondent also about the order passed by this court and despite this, pursuant to an order dated 4.12.2009 passed by the 4th respondent the 3rd respondent assumed charge. It is alleged that this act of the aforesaid respondents amounts to willful disobedience of the order of this court and therefore this contempt petition is filed praying for initiating action against the respondents. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 4 and 5 they state that the 3rd respondent reported duty on 4.12.2009 and that as he was not in a position to take charge in view of the absence of petitioner, he requested for appropriate orders enabling him to assume charge. It is stated that thereupon direction was issued to the 3rd respondent to assume charge and accordingly he assumed charge. According to the 4th respondent, COC.No.1541 /09 :3 : contrary to the allegation of the petitioner, he was not informed of the order of this court and that copy of the order was also not produced. 4. The 5th respondent has also filed a counter adopting almost similar contentions. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner he is denying the allegations and is reiterating his contentions. 5. The question arising for consideration is whether the respondents have willfully disobeyed the orders of this court rendering themselves liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 6. First of all, in so far as respondents 1 and 2 are concerned, even if what the petitioner sates is factually correct. Respondents 1 and 2 cannot be held to have parties to the alleged disobedience and consequently the are liable to be exonerated without any further examination of the controversy. 7. In so far as respondents 4 and 5 are concerned, as already stated on 4.12.2009, when the alleged incident happened, they were not parties to the writ petition. It was subsequently, that on 14.12.2009 by virtue of Annexure-2 order in I.A No.15502/09 passed in the writ petition, that they were impleaded as additional respondents. Therefore at the time when COC.No.1541 /09 :4 : the alleged incident happened they were not bound by the order passed by this court and for the reason they could itself not be accused of having willfully disobeyed an order of this court which binds them. 8. That apart, the pleading in the contempt petition suggests that it was despite the petitioner being present in the office on 4.12.2009 and appraising respondents 3 to 5 about Annexure-I order, respondents ignored the court order and that orders were issued by respondents 4 and 5 enabling the 3rd respondent to assume charge. Learned Government Pleader has made available before me photocopy of the attendance register of the Panchayat office, which shows that even on 4/12/2009 the petitioner was on casual leave. If that be the case, the story that the petitioner was present in the office and informed respondents 3 to 5 about the order passed by this court is, to say the least, very doubtful. O the other hand, the case of respondents 4 and 5 is that they were not informed of the order passed by this court. There is no material to disbelieve the story. No material has been produced in this case to disbelieve this version. Therefore, as at present I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for proceeding against respondents on the basis that they have COC.No.1541 /09 :5 : willfully disobeyed the order passed by this court. This petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/