IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 656 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.14923/2011 Dated 03/06/2011 & 17/06/2011 .................... PETITIONER: -------------- JOHNSON P.J., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, P E T, A U P SCHOOL, DWARAKA (RESIDING AT PATTANANIYIL HOUSE KANICHAR POST, KANNUR DISTRICT). BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT: ---------------- REF.FR.ROBIN VADAKKANCHERIL, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. V.T.MATHEW, CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF MANANTHAVADY, NALLORNADU POST,670 645. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CC(C).No.656/2011 A P P E N D I X ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF ORDER No.15/2009 DTD. 9.2.09 ISSUED BY CORPORATE MANAGER. ANNEXURE A2 : COPY OF ORDER DTD. 3.6.11 PASSED IN WP(C) 14923/2011. ANNEXURE A3 : COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD. 10.6.11 OF R1 IN WP(C) 14923/11. ANNEXURE A4 : COPY OF ORDER DTD. 17.6.11 PASSED IN WP(C) 14923/11. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- Contempt Case (C) No.656 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner in the Contempt Case is alleging disobeyance of the interim order passed in the writ petition. The challenge in the writ petition was the order of transfer. 2. In the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition produced as Annexure A3 herein, it is pointed out that the 5th respondent in the writ petition who was transferred in the place of the petitioner has taken charge and is working in the school. Finally, the writ petition was disposed of directing the Director of Public Instruction to consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order of transfer. It is submitted that the appeal was heard twice and no order has been passed so far. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner should have been retained in the school itself. But, evidently, the 5th respondent in the writ petition had joined the school. It is CC(C) No.656/2011 2 submitted that the petitioner is continuing on leave now. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that because of the disobeyance of the order passed by this Court by not retaining the petitioner in the school, there will be hardship for her in future. The same will depend upon the order to be passed by the Director of Public Instruction, as to how the period will have to be treated. I am not satisfied that this is a fit case for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act. This Contempt Case is closed accordingly. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp