IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1387 of 2010(S) ---------------------------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.25639/2010 DATED 16/08/2010] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- CHINCHU SHAJ, D/O.SHAJAHAN, AGED 22 YEARS, NEW HOUSE, PUTHEN CHANTHA, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- JAYACHANDRAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, THE VICE CHANCELLOR, THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR . THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O.C. No. 1387 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains of non-compliance with Annexure A2 judgment. In that judgment, I directed the Vice Chancellor of the University to pass orders on Ext.P7. On 18.11.2010, I passed the following interim order: “The learned counsel for the University submits that, orders as directed in Annexure A2 judgment has been passed as early as on 06.10.2010. The counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has not been forwarded with a copy of the same. The learned standing counsel for the University hands over a copy of the said order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner seeks time to verify.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, that is not a proper order because the same is signed by the Registrar and not by the Vice Chancellor. But on a reading of the said order, I find that, the same is titled “proceedings of the Vice Chancellor” and it is stated therein that the orders passed by the Vice Chancellor has been communicated to the petitioner although the same is signed by the Registrar. That being so, the remedy of the petitioner lies in challenging that order appropriately. Without prejudice to that right, this contempt case is closed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/