IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1245 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- DR. TRESA RADHAKRISHNAN,AGE 54 YEARS, W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN,PROFESSOR & HEAD DEPARTMENT OF AQUATIC BIOLOGY & FISHERIES, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARYAVATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. K.A.HASHIM,(AGE & FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)REGISTRAR,UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 581. 2. DR.A.J.KRISHNAN, (AGE & FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) VICE CHANCELLOR,UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 581. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR FOR R1,2 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== Contempt Case (C).No. 1245 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner alleges non-compliance with Annexure A2 judgment. In that judgment, the direction is to the Vice Chancellor of the University to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 representation filed by the petitioner. Now the petitioner herself has produced Annexure A5 proceedings of the Vice Chancellor dated 21.7.2010 issued pursuant to the said direction. But the petitioner maintains that that is not proper consideration of Ext.P2 as directed by this Court. I have gone through Annexure A5 order passed by the Vice Chancellor. He has elaborately considered the petitioner's allegations against the 4th respondent in the writ petition. The 4th respondent in the writ petition has also raised allegations against the petitioner in his written statement before the Vice Chancellor. After hearing both parties, the Vice Chancellor felt that the disputed facts raised by both parties cannot be decided by a hearing of the parties on the basis of allegations of the parties and he decided to direct a fact finding enquiry in the matter and passed appropriate orders in respect thereof. I am not satisfied with the contention of the petitioner that that is not a proper disposal of Ext.P2. I am of opinion that Annexure A5 order was the only order the Vice Chancellor could have passed in the c.o.c.1245/10 2 circumstances. As such, there is no deliberate violation of the direction in Annexure 2 judgment. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge