IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 477 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32828/2007 Dated 15/01/2008 .................... : PETITIONER/IST PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION --------------------------------------------------------------- DR.M.SASIKALA, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O. PRAKASAN, PRESIDENT, THANNIVILA VANITHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.T.1288,VADAKKEVILA BALARAMAPURAM (PO),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT ENCHAKKARA HOUSE, BALARAMAPURAM (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL RESPONDENTS: IST RESPONDENT --------------------------- SMT.K.BINDU, (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),BALARAMAPURAM UNIT INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL),CIVIL STATION BUILDING, NEYYATTINKARA,TVM. DIST.,(FORMER ADMINI- STRATOR,THANNIVILA VANITHA SERVICE CO-OP.SOCIETY L BY SENIOR GOVT PLEADER MR.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Contempt Case (Civil) No.477 of 2008(S) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the President of a Vanitha Service Co- operative Society seeking certain directions regarding handing over of the records to the newly elected committee. W.P.(C) No.32828 of 2007 was filed on the allegation that the documents taken by the Administrator of the society were not handed over. It was submitted by the learned Government Pleader on instructions that the Administrator will hand over the charge to the elected committee. That was recorded and the writ petition was allowed directing that all the records in terms of law shall be handed over to the elected committee. 2. This case invoking the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act is filed alleging that the respondent, who was the part time Administrator, handed over only volume 2 of minutes book. The assertion of the petitioner is that certain other documents, including volume 1 of the minutes book and documents regarding the loan transactions were also taken by the Administrator. Con.Case (c) No.477/2008 - 2 - 3. Even following the judgment dated 15-1-2008, there were controversies between the Administrator and the committee as to the identity of the documents taken by the Administrator into custody. The allegation of the petitioner is that no receipt was issued while taking documents into custody. The stand of the respondent/Administrator is that she had taken only volume 2 of the minutes book and no other documents were taken. I may notice from Annexure R1(d) that even after the judgment, on 25-2-2008, a meeting was convened by the Joint Registrar and even in that meeting, rival assertion of the petitioner and the Administrator were recorded and volume 2 of the minutes book was handed over under acknowledgment. 4. While it may be within the realm of the authority of the Joint Registrar to resolve the dispute regarding the availability of the documents or to issue such further lawful orders and directions as may be necessary to take care of the interest of the society, which also deals with funds in granting loans, the Joint Registrar should not have left the matter recording what has been done on 25-2-2008. The Joint Registrar should take further steps and issue such orders if necessary, in Con.Case (c) No.477/2008 - 3 - the interest of the society by issuing directions for reconstruction of records, if any, which may be permissible under the law. But I am not inclined to take cognizance of the case in hand as there is no neglect or negligence that could be attributed to the respondent, to invoke provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Annexure V produced along with the reply affidavit of the petitioner, though was Ext.P1 in the writ petition also, by itself, does not inspire confidence to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act, particularly, when the judgment in the writ petition was issued before any counter affidavit was filed and still further that Ext.P1 (Annexure V) addressed to the Joint Registrar cannot be treated as an admission of facts by the respondent herein. For the foregoing reasons, subject to what is stated above, this case is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/16-6-08 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.