IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1591 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WA.1050/2010 Dated 23/06/2010 .................... PETITIONER/3rd APPELLANT: ------------------------------- KAMALASANAN, SON OF NARAYANAN, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT VAYALIL PUTHENVEEDU, ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT/3rd RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- SHRI VENUKUTTAN PILLAI, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 510. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No.1591 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. This Contempt Case, in fact, arises from an interim order dated 23.06.2010 passed in W.A. No.1050 of 2010 (Annexure A) which reads as follows: “Learned Government Pleader to get instructions in the matter. In the meanwhile, resale of the five shops (T.S.Nos.7,8,9, 10 and 11) in Group II/2010/11 of Kollam Range shall be kept in abeyance till 28.06.2010.” 2. The petitioner contends that in spite of the said order, followed by 'Annexure B' order and 'Annexure C' judgment, Annexure D notice dated 24.06.2010 has been issued inviting applications for running the aforesaid shops departmentally, by way of re-auction/re-sale to be held on 24.06.2010, which is stated as contumacious and is sought to be proceeded against. 3. The respondent has filed an affidavit stating that there is absolutely no disobedience or violation of the direction CCC No. 1591 of 2010 -:2:- given by this Court, to attract initiation of Contempt proceedings. It is also stated that, pursuant to the interim order passed, the decision to have the five shops put on re-sale was of course dispensed with and the intention of issuance of Annexure D notice was only to manage the said five shops “departmentally”, in accordance with the provisions of Abkari Shops Departmental Management Rules, 1972. It is pointed out that such an attempt is made only to get over the emergent situation when licences are abandoned or the existing licences are rendered incapable of conducting the shops in the midst of a licence year. It is also brought out that, the attempt in this regard has turned futile and the shops are still remaining closed, as nobody has come forward to conduct the shops on departmental basis. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the provision to have the shop run on departmental basis has been incorporated to tackle the particular situation as narrated in the counter affidavit and to see that the shops do not remain closed for the balance licence period, causing undue loss to the revenue and also with an intention to safeguard the CCC No. 1591 of 2010 -:3:- interest of the employees who are working in those shops, which hence is within the four walls of law. The learned Government Pleader further submits that such an arrangement is only for a period of '7 to 15 days' at a time and the same cannot be construed as 'resale'. We find that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is throughly wrong and misconceived. No further steps are to be pursued in the contempt matter. Accordingly, the Contempt of Court Case is dismissed as devoid of any merit or bonafides. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb CCC No. 1591 of 2010 -:4:-