IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 Con.Case (C).No. 656 of 2008(S) ---------------------------------------------- ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19139/2007 DATED 29/06/2007 .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS 1,3 & 4 IN WPC -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LEYON, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.EDWARD, KALLUVILA VEEDU, VALSA VILASAM, PADAPPAKARA P.O., KARIKUZHI, KUNDARA, KOLLAM. 2. JOY, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.,MARTIN, JIJO NIVAS, PADAPPAKARA P.O, KARIKUZHI, KUNDARA, KOLLAM. 3. SALIM, AGED 5 YEARS, S/O.MAKKARIOS, ANOOP BHAVAN, KUMBALAM P.O., KUNDARA,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3 & 4: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.PRASANNAKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS), DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THAHA, AGED 46 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS), FISHERIES INSPECTOR, THEVALLY, KOLLAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & M.C.HARI RANI, J. ------------------------------------------ Con. Case (C) No.656 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 21st day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Petitioners being of the opinion that the respondents herein have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.19139 of 2007 dated 29th June, 2007, are before us in this contempt petition with a request to frame charges against the respondents and punish them for their so called deliberate and wilful disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this Court. 2. We have heard Smt.M.A.Vaheeda Babu, learned counsel appearing for the complainants and Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. At the outset, we should notice the orders and directions issued by this Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No.19139 of 2007. One and the only direction that is issued by this Court is at paragraph 4 of the order. The said direction is as under: “There will be a direction to the 4th respondent that in case the petitioners submit applications in the prescribed format, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with Ext.P1 rules within three weeks from the date of receipt of such application.” 4. Since the respondents had not complied with the orders and directions issued by this Court, petitioners were constrained to file Cont. Case (C) No.1268 of 2007. This Court by its orders dated 6th March, 2008 was Cont.Case (C)No.656 of 2008 2 pleased to dispose of the contempt petition by recording the undertaking that was given by the learned Government Pleader on instructions. 5. After the disposal of the writ petition and the contempt petition the State Government has now come up by a Government order bearing G.O.(RT) No.205/08/F&PD dated 25.3.2008. In the said Government order it is stated that the applicant will be eligible for only one licence of 'Othukkuvala with Padal'. The order passed by the State Government is as under: “In the circumstances reported by the Director of Fisheries in his letter read above Government are pleased to approve the draft forms for making an application for the license of 'Othukkuvala with Padal in order to comply the direction of Hon'ble High Court. The number of padals shall be limited to one to each of the registered fishermen belonging to a fishermen family for an annual licensing fee of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per padal.” 6. Learned counsel appearing for the complainants would submit that the action of the respondents and the order passed by the State Government is contrary to the orders and directions issued by this Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No.19139 of 2007. It is therefore stated that the respondents have committed an act of contempt as envisaged under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Therefore, a request is made to frame charges against the respondents and punish them for the wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this Court. 7. Per contra, Sri.Sreekrishnan, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents have substantially Cont.Case (C)No.656 of 2008 3 complied with the orders and directions issued by this Court by issuing the Government order dated 25.3.2008. 8. As we have already noticed, one and the only direction that is issued by this Court is to consider the application filed by the petitioners in accordance with Ext.P1 Rules. Ext.P1 Rules is framed by the State Government in exercise of their powers under Section 4 of the Travancore-Cochin Fisheries Act, 1950. The Rules do not provide the number of Othukkuvala Padals that can be granted to each applicant. May be in aid of the aforesaid Rules the State Government has now passed the order dated 25.3.2008 restricting the number of Othukkuvala Padals that can be granted to each applicant as one to each of the registered fishermen belonging to a fishermen family for an annual licensing fee of Rs.1000/-. 9. In the order passed by this Court there is no direction as such to grant any number of licences that the applicant may wish. The direction that is issued by this Court is to consider the application that may be filed by the applicants for grant of Othukkuvala Padals. Since the Government order now says that each applicant can get only one licence, the authorities can grant only once licence to each applicant. In our opinion, in view of the orders passed by the State Government dated 25.3.2008, it cannot be said that the respondents have wilfuly and deliberately disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No.19139 of 2007. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to take cognizance of the complaint filed by the complainants in this contempt proceedings. 10. Accordingly while rejecting the contempt petition we reserve liberty Cont.Case (C)No.656 of 2008 4 to the petitioners, if they so desire, to question the legality or otherwise of the orders passed by the State Government dated 25.3.2008 in appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE vns