IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1224 of 2007(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.8309/07 IN WPC.5177/2005 Dated 25/06/2007 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- THE COMMONWEALTH TRUST (INDIA) LTD., SOUTH MANANCHIRA ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR-IN-CHARGE, M.G. GOPINATH (AGED 54), S/O. M. GOVINDAN. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA RESPONDENTS/9TH RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- A.K.ABDUL RAZAK, AGED 46, S/O. A.K.AHAMMED, PONNADATH KANDI HOUSE, POST KARUVANPOYIL P.O., (VIA) KODUVALLY, CALICUT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Case (C) No.1224 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ. The Commonwealth Trust (India) Limited, (“the trust” for short) is the petitioner in this contempt petition. It was also the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5177 of 2005. In this contempt petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the complainant alleges that the respondent/9th respondent in the writ petition has disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this court dated 25.6.2007. Therefore, a request is made to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings for the so-called wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this court in I.A. No.8309 of 2007 dated 25.6.2007. 2. The respondent is served and he is represented by the learned counsel Sri. Johnson Manayani. 3. The sole respondent has filed a counter affidavit in this contempt petition and in that he primarily contends that though he was interested to purchase the property in question, he could not raise sufficient funds and therefore, pleads his inability to comply with the orders and directions issued by this court in I.A. No.8309 of 2007 dated 25.6.2007. Apart from this, the respondent has offered unconditional apology to this court. 4. This court, while disposing of I.A. 8309 of 2007 on 25.6.2007 was pleased to observe as under: “Pursuant to that order the petitioner convened a meeting of all the intending purchasers and apart from the 9th C.O.C. 1224/2007. 2 respondent, none of the others was prepared to take the property at the rate of Rs.1 lakh per cent or above. The 9th respondent confirmed that he is willing to take the property at the rate of Rs.One lakh per cent. Accordingly, by Ext.P51 communication the petitioner directed the 9th respondent to deposit the amount as directed by this court. However, by Ext.P52 dated 2.5.2007 the 9th respondent sought 45 days time to deposit the amount. He also stated that he may be provided a 5 and a half meter wide road to the property. That 45 days are also over. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this I.A for a direction to the additional 9th respondent herein to deposit the entire sale consideration for the three acres of property out of the property No.1 mentioned in Ext.P43 tabulation statement at the rate of Rs.1 lakh per cent in a nationalised bank forthwith. His only contention now is that he is entitled to a road of 5 and a half meter wide to the property. However, such a contention was not put forwarded by the 9th respondent before this court earlier. That being so, the 9th respondent cannot bring in any new condition to his offer. In the above facts and circumstances, there would be a direction as prayed for. The amount shall be deposited in the State Bank of India, Calicut branch in the name of the petitioner within a week from today. The disbursement of the amount shall only be as per further orders to be passed in this writ petition.” 5. In the order so passed by the learned Single Judge it was made clear that the 9th respondent shall purchase the property measuring an extent of 3 acres (item No.1 in Annexure C tabulation statement). 6. Sri.U.K.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the complainant would submit that in view of the undertaking given by the respondent and also in view of the orders passed by this court in I.A. 8309 of 2007 dated 25.6.2007, the Trust could not sell the property to any other person and thereby has incurred huge pecuniary loss. 7. The order passed by this court is in clear terms. Since the respondent had volunteered himself to purchase the property by paying Rs.1 lakh per cent the C.O.C. 1224/2007. 3 learned Single Judge had allowed him to purchase the property by paying whatever amount he had volunteered to pay. Now, from the affidavit filed, it so transpires that the respondent had made all efforts to purchase the property, but has failed in his attempt. Therefore, submits that he may be pardoned by accepting the unconditional apology. 8. Having gone through the orders passed by this court and also the unconditional apology offered by the respondent, in our opinion, it may not be necessary for us to take cognizance of this contempt proceedings, though we feel that the respondent has disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this court, that disobedience may not be wilful or deliberate. In that view of the matter, we drop this contempt proceedings. However, we reserve liberty to the complainant, if it so desires, to proceed against the respondent for any other reliefs, if they are entitled under law. The complainant is also permitted to make an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge for modification of the orders passed in I.A. 8309 of 2007 dated 25.6.2007 as well as Annexure A order. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb/DK.