IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 Con.APP. (C) No. 4 of 2009(S) ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN COC.1118/2008 Dated 18/09/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN CONT.CASE --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.SATHYASEELAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN,CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MERKETING FEDERATION LTD., GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI 682 020. RESIDING AT "USHUS", EZHUKONE P.O.-691 506, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SHRI.AJITHKUMAR VARMA IRS, S/O.ADITYA VARMA,AGED 50 YEARS, FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MERKETING FEDERATION LTD., GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI 682 020. RESIDING AT NO.4, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI-620 001,TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN CONT.CASE ------------------------------------------------------------- SHRI.V.C.EMMANUEL, S/O.LATE CHACKO, AGED 62 YEARS, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT C-5, ST.COLAMBUS APARTMENT, PLOT NO.15, SECTOR VII, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI 110 075. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI THIS CONTEMPT APPEAL (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ Cont. Appeal (C) No.4 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. This contempt appeal is filed challenging the order dated 18th September, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Cont. case (C) No.1118 of 2008. Finding that the orders of this Court issued repeatedly and affirmed by the apex Court were not, prima facie, complied with, the above contempt case was filed by the complainant/respondent herein. 2. While considering the contempt case, the learned Single Judge probed deeply into the matter and, prima facie, finding that there was contempt, directed the Principal Secretary to Government in the Department of Co-operation to consider the entire matter and place the views of the Government and its decision before him to take appropriate action. Cont.Appeal No.4 of 2009 - 2 - 3. Being aggrieved by the above observation, the present appeal is filed, inter alia, contending that as the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge under the Contempt of Courts Act is very limited, in the sense the Court is only required to find out whether there is, prima facie, contempt, in this case being civil contempt, and whether there was any deliberate attempt on the part of the contemnor to defy the orders of the Court or commit any wilful disobedience to the judgment rendered by this Court, and nothing further. 4. After going through the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, though on the face of it, it appears to us that the learned Single Judge should not have gone into in detail the history of the case and further seek opinion of the Government in this regard, as it was open for him to, prima facie, come to a conclusion as to whether there is contempt or not and then proceed with the contempt case, we find that the impugned direction in the ultimate paragraph of the order requires to be Cont.Appeal No.4 of 2009 - 3 - deleted, as at this stage it was not required by the learned Single Judge to do so. 5. Hence, we allow this contempt appeal and order that the last portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in so far as it directs the Government to make an enquiry and give a finding is ordered to be deleted. The contempt case stands remitted back to the learned Single Judge to find out whether there is any wilful disobedience or not to the direction issued by this Court and if the answer is positive, the learned Judge can proceed to take further action or if it is negative, drop the contempt proceedings. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns/vgs