IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 800 of 2010() ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. 13423/2009 IN WPC.22045/2009 Dated 11/11/2009 .................... PETITIONER: -------------- PRESCILLA CHANDRAMATHY, W/O.T.GNANALAL, AGED 49 YEARS, T.C.11/1595(1), CHARACHIRA, CRAK-3, KOWDIAR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.ELVIN PETER P.J., ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT, (FATHER'S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SMT.SHEELA THOMAS, (FATHER'S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM. BY MR.A.J. VARGHESE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------ Contempt Case (C) No.800 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the salary of the petitioner has been disbursed already. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the 2nd respondent has been made as a party in this contempt case unnecessarily. It is pointed out that the 2nd respondent was not arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition. 2. It is seen that the 2nd respondent herein is not a respondent in the writ petition. The reason for arraying the 2nd respondent in the contempt case is only because the 2nd respondent has issued certain memos to the petitioner. Therefore, it was only proper for the petitioner to array the 2nd respondent as a party in the writ petition and seek appropriate orders in the matter if there was any grievance in the matter. Contempt Case (C) No.800/2010 2 Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, it was unnecessary for the petitioner to implead the 2nd respondent as a party in this contempt case. The conduct of the petitioner cannot be appreciated in that regard. But, I am leaving the matter there as the directions issued by this Court have already been complied with. This Contempt Case is closed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp