IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1251 of 2009() -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20207/2009 Dated 17/07/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN THE WPC ------------------------- MERLY JOHNS PRESENTLY WORKING AS LPSA L.M.L.P.SCHOOL, MUHAMMA, CHERTHALA. AGED 27 YEARS. W/O. STALIN MANORAJ, AGED 27 YEARS. BY ADVS. MR.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD MR.C.JOSEPH JOHNY RESPONDENT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE WPC ---------------------------- A.P.M.MOHAMMED HANISH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON 19/03/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O.(C) No. 1251 of 2009-S - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Alleging disobeyance of the directions contained in Annexure A judgment, this Contempt of Courts Case has been filed. The respondent has filed an affidavit and an additional affidavit and the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit also. 2. As per Annexure A judgment, this Court directed the Director of Public Instruction to take a decision on Exts.P2 and P3 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The allegation raised in the Contempt of Courts Case is that no action whatsoever has been taken by the respondent for complying with the directions in the judgment. 3. In the affidavit dated 7.12.2009, the respondent submitted that a hearing was conducted on 23.10.2009 by the Additional Director of Public Instruction. and in spite of the notice, the petitioner and the Manager of the school did not attend the hearing. Only the Assistant Educational Officer, Cherthala attended it. Another hearing was conducted on 11.11.2009 after giving the proper notice to the petitioner and the Manager, but they did not CCC 1251/2009 2 attend the hearing. Therefore, an ex-parte order was issued upholding the decision of the Assistant Educational Officer, Cherthala. The respondent also produced along with the affidavit, true extract of the despatch register of the office of the Director of Public Instruction for issuance of the notice on 21.10.2009 as Annexure A1. Annexure A2 is the extract of despatch register for issuance of the notice on 30.10.2009 for hearing of the parties on 11.11.2009. 4. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner has not received any of the notices as contended in the affidavit. According to the petitioner, the entries in the despatch register are made by way of fraudulent means only to escape from the proceedings of this Court. Again, the respondent has filed an additional affidavit on 8.1.2010. It was pointed out therein that Annexures A3 to A5 records kept in the office of the respondent also show that the notices were actually sent by ordinary post. Since it was sent by ordinary post, no acknowledgment is available. Finally, the respondent has issued a notice proposing the hearing on 6.1.2010, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A6, which was sent by registered post. True copy of the extract of the despatch register is produced as Annexure A7. The petitioner filed another petition for admitting a document which is marked as Annexure E. It was pointed out CCC 1251/2009 3 that the appointment of the petitioner was liable to be proved. 5. In the light of the fact that a fresh opportunity was given to the petitioner and a hearing has already been conducted accordingly, this Court passed an order on 25.1.2010 directing the respondent to pass a fresh order. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the respondent may be directed to pass a considered order. It was noticed by this Court in the said order that there is nothing to show that he will not consider the contentions of the parties while passing the order. 6. The petitioner has produced Annexure F order passed by the respondent on 4.2.2010 pursuant to the hearing conducted on 6.1.2010. The decision is against the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the attitude of the respondent shows that there is gross violation of the directions issued by this Court and nothing has been considered on merits. Learned Govt. Pleader pointed out that Annexure F is a considered order and the remedy of the petitioner is only to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings or in a writ petition. 8. What is alleged in this Contempt Petition is the non-compliance of the direction issued by this Court in Annexure A judgment. The allegation was that no orders have been passed on Exts.P2 and P3 as directed by this CCC 1251/2009 4 Court. The respondent then contended that already an order has been passed and the petitioner did not respond to the notice of hearing which is disputed by the petitioner. Finally, a further hearing was also held on 6.1.2010 after the filing of this case. This was done after issuing registered notice to the petitioner also. 9. In that view of the matter, there is compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment. The question now raised by the petitioner is whether it is a reasoned order or not. The remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. 10. I am satisfied that no further action is called for in this proceedings. In that view of the matter, the C.C.C. is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge Annexure F in appropriate proceedings. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/