IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 1800 of 2007(S) ------------------------------- JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25249/2007 Dated 17/09/2007 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION: ------------------------------------------------------------ K.S. JAYIN, S/O.K.C.SCARIA, AGED 44 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), NERIAMANGALAM, EXTENSION SCHEME, THATTEKKANNI P.O. IDUKKI-685 602. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JNANASEKHARAN RESPONDENT: 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION: ------------------------------------------------- DR. G.PAVITHRAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), K.S.E.BOARD,VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY S.C.SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Con. Case No.1800 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing Annexure-R1(a) order, the Electricity Board has not considered the directions issued by this Court. The decision that the Board is not in a position to promote the petitioner before the finalization of seniority list is not tenable, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is against the specific direction of this Court in the judgment dated 17-9-2007. It may not be appropriate for this Court in proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act to consider whether the decision taken by the respondent is otherwise tenable in law or reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. That is a matter for judicial review. 3. In the circumstances, I do not think it appropriate to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent. Hence, the contempt of COC 1800/07 2 court case is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take appropriate action in relation to Annexure R1(a) order. V. GIRI, JUDGE. mn.