IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 1240 of 2011(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36438/2009 .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. REV.FR.JOHN PUNNAMATTOM, VICAR, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 62 YEARS, ST.MARY'S JACOBITE SYRIAN CHURCH, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., IDUKKI. 2. T.M.KURIAN, TRUSTEE, ST.MARY'S JACOBITE SYRIAN CHURCH, S/O.MATHEW AGED 70 YEARS, THANDEL PUTHENPURAYIL, THADIYANPADU P.O., KESAVAMUNI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.4: --------------- T.SURENDRAN, THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685602. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. S. ABDUL SALAM. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No.1240 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C)No. 36438 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 3rd December , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the order passed by the respondent, produced as Annexure-A6, allegedly in compliance with the direction given by this Court as per the judgment dated 31.05.2011 in W.P.(C) 36438 of 2009. According to the petitioner, it is nothing but a contumacious act for the reason that, inspite of the specific direction to have the matter considered and finalised by the concerned respondent, the said respondent has evaded from the duty, holding that he does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter, suggesting some other course. 2, The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition was originally filed seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent/State to consider Ext.P2 application filed by the petitioner for assignment of the land in question. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court it was CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No.1240 OF 2011 2 pointed out by the concerned Government Pleader who entered appearance on behalf of the respondents that the power and competence to deal with the matter is actually vested with the Special Tahsildar (LA) Painavu, Idukki. The said observation was recorded by this Court on 08.02.2011 and it was in the said circumstance, that the writ petitioner chose to implead the Special Tahsildar as above, simultaneously causing the writ petition to be amended by incorporating a prayer to have the representation considered and decided by the Spl. Tahsildar. After hearing both the sides, the writ petition was disposed of, directing the said additional respondent to consider and finalise the matter. 3. Pursuant to the above judgment, the Addl. 4th respondent in the writ petition considered the matter and passed Annexure A6 order dated 18.07.2011, holding that the said respondent does not have power, competence , jurisdiction or authority to deal with the matter and that the same is actually vested with the Government to be pursued by the concerned Tahsildar of Thodupuzha. The stand taken by the said authority CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No.1240 OF 2011 3 is virtually contrary to the submission made by the then Government Pleader before this Court on 08.02.2011. In the light of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court thought it fit and proper to call for the 'judge's papers' to ascertain the sequence of events. It is seen from the proceedings that the course and events as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is correct. 4. However, after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader now appearing on behalf of the respondent, this Court finds that, if the jurisdiction is not actually vested upon the 4th respondent , the said respondent cannot be found fault with, for the prime reason that jurisdiction cannot be conferred on an authority on the basis of any consent or agreement and as such, it is not liable to be proceeded further under the Contempt of Courts Act. It is always open for the petitioner to challenge the concerned order, if the petitioner is of the firm belief that the power is still vested with the said respondent or to pursue fresh proceedings against the proper parties for redressal of the grievance. Finalisation of CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No.1240 OF 2011 4 the proceedings as per the judgment dated 31.05.2011 in W.P. (C) 36438 of 2009 will not stand as a bar in this regard 5. It cannot but be mentioned that the petitioner has been made to pursue this exercise pursuant to the wrong instruction, if it be so, stated as given by the concerned respondents, when the writ petition was taken up for consideration on 08.02.2011, virtually necessitating impleadment of the additional 4th respondent and also causing amendment of the writ petition, finally taking to the turn of events as now being dealt with. In the said circumstance, it will be open for the petitioner to pray for cost as well, in the writ petition, if any, filed before this Court in pursuit of grievance, as aforesaid. The contempt of Court case is closed. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk