IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1932 WP(C) NO. 8085 OF 2010 PETITIONER/S: C.A.GOPI, MATE, INTEGRATED FISHERIS PROJECT,COCHIN-16,RESIDING AT CHETTIAKARA HOUSE,, NAYARAMBALAM.P.O,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV SRI.C.A.JOY RESPONDENT/S: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,KRISHI BHAVAN,NEW DELHI. 2 THE JOINT SECRETARY MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE HUSBANDRY,, DAIRYING AND FISHERIES,NEW DELHI. 3 THE DIRECTOR NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST HARVST TECHNOLOGY AND TRAINING, (EARLIER NAMED INTEGRATED FISHERIES PROJECT),, KOCHI-16. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.03.2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C) No.8085 of 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is a mate in the Integrated Fisheries Project filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to implement the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.34378/03 dated 29.11.2003 and to promote him as skipper with effect from 10.6.1996. Subsequently, he filed Con.Case (C) No.1255 of 2004. The same was dismissed as per Ext.P5 taking note of the fact that in the Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment in W.P.(C)No.34378/03 it is evident that the respondents therein are bona fide pursuing their remedy in the Apex Court and as such non-compliance of the order could not be said to be wilful and therefore, no case was made for initiating contempt of court proceedings. He is due to retire on 31.5.2010. He moved this writ petition on 3.2.2010. The contention is that no stay was granted by the Apex Court. In fact it is the subsequent development that made the petitioner to approach this Court seeking the aforesaid relief. 2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. Taking note -3- W.P.(C) No.8085 of 2010 of the relief sought for, I do not think it proper to consider the contentions on merits. The prayer of the petitioner is as follows:- “issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to implement the judgment of this Honourable Court in W.P.(C)No.34378/03 promoting the Petitioner as skipper with effect from 10.6.1996.” 3. The sole question is whether the prayer is grantable in the facts and circumstances mentioned above. In that context, it is only appropriate to refer to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Balakrishna Pisharody v. KSEB reported in 1987(2) KLT 937. It was held by the Division Bench that the remedy available to the aggrieved party in circumstances where the grievance is regarding non- implementation of an earlier order is to enforce the first order in appropriate proceedings and further that it can be done by invoking the powers of this Court under the Contempt of Court Act. In the case on hand, the petitioner has virtually availed that remedy as can be seen from Ext.P5 judgment. Obviously, -4- W.P.(C) No.8085 of 2010 the Division Bench dismissed the contempt petition as per Ext.P5, taking note of the fact that the Special Leave Petition is filed against the judgment in W.P.(C)No.34378/03 and as such it is evident that the respondents therein are pursuing their remedy in bona fide before the Apex Court and therefore, non-compliance of the order could not be said to be wilful. Accordingly, it was held that no case was made for initiating contempt of court proceedings. Conspicuously, the petitioner has not mentioned anything about the outcome of the Special Leave Petition. The only contention is that no stay of implementation of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.34378/03 was granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court. But, according to me, that will not confer the petitioner a right to approach this Court with the aforementioned prayer in view of the dictum laid down in Balakrishna Pisharody’s case (supra). A writ petition for implementing the judgment in W.P. (C)No.34378/03 cannot be maintained in view of the dictum laid down in Balakrishna Pisharody’s case (supra) and also in view of Ext.P5 judgment. -5- W.P.(C) No.8085 of 2010 In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of leaving liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies appropriately before the appropriate forum subject to the outcome of the challenge against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.34378/03. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge das -6- W.P.(C) No.8085 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER No.AI/I- I/93/784 DATED 13.04.1994 EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER No.A1/2- 8/95/1348 DATED 10.6.1996 EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2003 IN OA No.1292/03 EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2003 IN WP(C) 34378 OF 2003 EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.11.04 IN CCCNo.1255/2004 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.10.2007 IN WP.1127 OF 2004 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER No.A3/WP/1127/2004 DATED 01.07.2008 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER No.5-16/2002-Fy.(T.5)(II) DATED 19.05.2005 EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.10.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.