IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1385 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.25227/1998 Dated 24/03/1999 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS 2 & 1 IN THE O.P. -------------------------------------------------------- 1. G.RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED 60, S/O.K.G.PANICKER, SENIOR GRADE ECONOMIC INVESTIGATOR, STUDY ON COST OF CULTIVATION OF PRINCIPAL CROPS IN KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARIAVATTOM,TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT SREE PADMAM,LIBRARY ROAD,ALUVA. 2. GOPIKUTTAN NAIR,AGED 63,S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI,HIGHER GR.ECONOMIC INVESTIGATOR(RETD.)STUDY OF COST OF CULTIVATION OF PRINCIPAL CROPS IN KERALA,DEPT.OF ECONOMICS,UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARIAVATTOM,TRIVANDRUM,RESIDING AT CHIRACKAL HOUSE THRICKODITHANAM.P.O,CHANGANASSERY,KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.S.VISHNU RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE O.P. ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. DR.A.K.NIOG,AGED(NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS)S/O.(NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS), THE ECONOMIC & STATISTICAL ADVISOR,MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMICS & STATISTICS, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-1. ] 2. SHRI.M.A.HASHIM,AGED(NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS)S/O.(NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS)THE REGISTRAR,UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, TRIVANDRUM. BY. ADV.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== Cont.Case(C) NO. 1385 OF 2008 (S) ====================== Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T This contempt petition is filed on the allegation that Annexure A1 judgment as confirmed in Annexures A3 and 4 have not been complied with either by the University or by the Union of India. 2. The University has in pursuance to the above judgments forwarded the proposal to the Union of India and that the matter is pending. By forwarding the proposal as above, the University has carried out its part of the direction and therefore no contempt will lie as against the University. 3. In so far as Union of India is concerned, neither the judgment of the learned Single Judge nor the judgment of the Division Bench contains any positive direction requiring them to do anything in any particular manner, within any time limit. If that be so, I do not think a contempt petition as such is maintainable against Union of India. True, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Union of India is also bound by the judgment, but then, in the absence of any COC 1385/08 :2 : positive direction, a party cannot be proceeded against in contempt jurisdiction. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek appropriate directions in other proceedings, contempt of court case is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp