IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 396 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31909/2009 Dated 13/11/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS IN WPC --------------------------------- THE KERALA CARADAMOM PROCESSING & MARKETING CO.LTD., THEKKADI, KUMILI, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.JOJO GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE J.MATHEW, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOOTTICKAL. BY ADV. MR. RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT(S): IST RESPONDENT IN WPC ------------------------------------ ISSAC BENJAMIN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, IDUKKI AT KATTAPPANA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2010, ALONG WITH COC NO. 397 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ Contempt Case (C) Nos.396 and 397 of 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. These Contempt Cases are filed alleging disobeyance and violation of directions contained in Annexure-A Judgment (common judgment in two writ petitions). The respondent was directed not to finalise the penalty proceedings without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners by furnishing copy of materials which may be required and also without affording opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses proposed. Complaint of the petitioners is that inspite of specific request made for furnishing copies of materials on which the proposal is based, the respondent had failed to furnish such copies and without proper compliance of directions contained in the Judgment, Annexure-G to Annexure-J orders were issued imposing penalty. It is admitted that the petitioners have already filed writ petitions before this court challenging those orders, as WP(C).Nos.6293/2010 and 6285/2010. COC.396 & 397/10 -2- 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent has pointed out that Annexure-C letter was issued by the respondent in reply to the request made by the petitioners before finalising the penalty. It is discernible from Annexure-C that details of certain materials regarding quantity of cardamom pooled by the petitioners were furnished. According to the petitioners those are only materials furnished by the petitioners themselves and the respondent has failed to furnish copies of any materials upon which he is relying for imposition of penalty. 3. However, the orders issued afresh are under challenge before this court in writ petitions. If there is any disobeyance or violation of the directions contained in Annexure-A Judgment, the petitioners can very well make use of such failure to challenge validity of the orders of penalty either before this court or before any other statutory forum. I am of the considered opinion that based on the materials produced no action is warranted under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly the Contempt Cases are closed reserving liberty of the petitioners to raise all grounds available against the order imposing penalty, including COC.396 & 397/10 -3- non-compliance of the directions contained in Annexure-A Judgment, before the appropriate authority while challenging Annexure-G to Annexure -J orders of penalty. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb