IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 686 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.30343/2009 Dated 27/10/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WP: ----------------------------------------------------- ANNAKUTTY, CHAKKITTAPARAMBIL, KALAMPOOR.P.O., PIRAVOM(VIA) PIN-686 664. BY ADV. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): CONTEMNOR/RESPONDENT NO.5 IN WP: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.B.VALSALA KUMARI, I.A.S., (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, COMMISSIONERATE OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.SAJEEV THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------- Cont. Case (C)No.686 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 7th June, 2010 JUDGMENT By Annexure I interim order this Court directed the Commissioner of Civil Supplies to consider Ext.P8 appeal filed by the petitioner and pass orders thereon after affording her or her representative an opportunity of being heard in person. This Court also directed that the Commissioner of Civil Supplies shall deal with the various contentions raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal independently and shall pass an order giving reasons in support of his conclusions. Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies heard the petitioner and passed Annexure II order dated 16.12.2009. By the said order, the orders impugned in the appeal were set aside and the District Supply Officer, Ernakulam was directed to pass fresh orders in the matter after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It is admitted that pursuant to Annexure II order, the District Supply Officer, Ernakulam heard the petitioner and passed a revised order, though a copy of the revised order is not produced and in the contempt case there is no mention about the revised order passed by the District Supply Officer COC.No.686/2010 2 pursuant to Annexure II order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of Annexure I order, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies was bound to independently consider the grounds raised in Ext.P8 and pass an order and that she ought not have remanded the matter to the District Supply Officer, Ernakulam for de novo consideration. I am afraid there is no merit in the said contention. In view of the fact that one of the grounds raised in the revision petition filed before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies was that the petitioner was not heard by the District Supply Officer, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies was in my opinion entitled to act on the said contention, set aside the impugned orders and direct the District Supply Officer to pass fresh orders in the matter. This Court did not by Annexure I order restrict the jurisdiction conferred on the Commissioner of Civil Supplies to pass appropriate orders in the matter. All that this Court had stated was the Commissioner of Civil Supplies has to bestow attention to all the grounds raised in the appeal. If the Commissioner of Civil Supplies found that there is violation of the principles of natural justice and for that reason the impugned orders should be set aside without going into the other contentions raised by the petitioner on the merits and the original authority should be COC.No.686/2010 3 directed to pass revised orders after hearing the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies cannot be said to be one in willful disobedience of Annexure I order. Further, the petitioner has not chosen to mention in this contempt case about the subsequent orders passed by the District Supply Officer in implementation of Annexure II order. The conduct of the petitioner in suppressing the said order in this contempt case, though the learned counsel for the petitioner was fair enough to disclose that fact, has to be deprecated. I therefore find no merit in this contempt case. It is accordingly dismissed with costs Rs.1,000/- which the petitioner shall pay to the High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks from today, failing which it will be open to the High Court Legal Services Committee to recover the same in accordance with law. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS