IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1302 of 2010(S) ---------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15928/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ P.D.BABU, S/O.DAVIS.P.D., AGED 48 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, BABU LUCKY CENTER, MANNATHIKULAM LANE, IRINJALAKUDA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ T.V.RAJAN, AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DIVISIONAL PREVENTIVE UNIT, TRICHUR DIVISION, SAKTHAN THAMBURAN NAGAR, TRICHUR. 680 121. ADV. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM,SC,C.B. EXCISE THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cont. Case (C) No. 1302 OF 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 19th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT This contempt of court case has been filed by the petitioner, alleging wilful disobedience on the part of the respondent in respect of the interim order dated 25.05.2010 in W.P. (C) No. 15928 of 2010, whereby all further proceedings, pursuant to Exts. P1 and P2 produced in the writ petition and in terms of the Explanation introduced to sub clause (ii) of Clause 19 of Section 65 of the Finance Act , 1994 as amended, were stayed, as prayed for, till the disposal of the writ petition; despite which, the respondent issued Annexure II notice dated 17.09.2010, seeking for further details. The petitioner submits that, eventhough Annexure III reply dated 24.09.2010 has been filed referring to the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent issued Annexure IV notice dated 27.09.2010, observing as follows:- “As per this office letter OC No. 586 of 2010 dated 17.09.2010, this office have requested to furnish the details of purchase and sales of Sikkim Lottery tickets from M/s M.J. Associates, Palakkad for the further period only i.e. 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 and not related to SCN No. 35/2010 (St) dated 13.05.2010. As per Hon'ble High Court Order interim stay granted only for SCN No. 35/2010 (St.) dated 13.05.2010 and not for further period. Hence it is once again COC No. 1302 of 2010 2 requested to furnish the details as called for in this office letter OC No. 586/2010 dated 17.09.2010 without further delay. 2. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the respondent has turned up and filed an affidavit before this Court, regretting the course pursued by him and also tendering unconditional & unqualified apology with regard to the course of events pursued, particularly, as stated in paragraph 4, which is extracted below: “It is further submitted that I am not a legally trained personnel and on perusal of the interim order I was under the bonafide impression that the above interim order is confined to the Exhibits P1 and P2 communications issued by the respondent 2 & 3 in the above writ petition. It was under such circumstances that I have issued Annexure IV reminder requesting the petitioner to produce the details in respect of the period not covered by Exhibits P1 & P2. It is submitted that I have no intention of disobeying or violating the directions issued by this Honourable Court. It is further submitted that I was under the bonafide impression that the stay is confined to the period covered by Exhibits P1 & P2 and not beyond that and I have issued the request letter due to the apprehension that the period of limitation for assessment would be run if no action is taken against the petitioner for the period not covered by Exts. P1 and P2. I further submit that I happened to issue Annexure II and Annexure IV communications in the above circumstances and there is no malafides or defiance in the above action. I deeply regret the inconvenience caused and tender my unconditional and unqualified apology for the same”. COC No. 1302 of 2010 3 3. This Court is records the extreme displeasure with regard to the manner in which the interim order passed by this Court has been dealt with by the respondent, as if he were a man of dismal prudence. However, considering the persuasive submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent and also considering the explanation offered from the part of the respondent through the affidavit filed before this Court expressing sincere regrets and tendering unconditional apology, this Court does not find it necessity to proceed with the contempt matter any further. The contempt of Court case is closed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd