Back
2015 Supreme(Ker) 166
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC AND ALEXANDER THOMAS, JJ.
M.A. Nishad – Appellant
Versus
N. Ramachandran – Respondent
Con.Case(C).No. 42 of 2015 (S) In WP(C).31081 of 2013
Decided On : 11-03-2015
For the Petitioner:K. Ramkumar(Sr.), C.S. Abdul Sammad, T.U. Ziyad, P.K. Rameena, Advocates
For the Respondent:R1, P.K. Ibrahim, K.P. Ambika, A.A. Shibi, Advocates
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 Article 215 Rules of the High Court of Kerala 1971, Rule 150 Proviso - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 2(c) Disobedience of the Proviso to Rule 150 in a pending Writ Petition, in which a petition or an I.A filed cannot lead to Contempt of Court - For such disobedience, Rules specified under the contempt of Court Act will not attract - Contempt petition dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points relevant to the issue of contempt are as follows:
-
Nature of the Contempt Allegation: The contempt petition was filed against the respondent for allegedly filing multiple applications for the same relief, suppressing the filing of one, and not withdrawing redundant petitions. This conduct was claimed to interfere with the due course of justice and undermine the authority and dignity of the Court (!) .
-
Procedural Requirements: The Rules of the High Court of Kerala stipulate that petitions and interlocutory applications must contain a statement regarding whether similar petitions concerning the same subject matter have been filed earlier and the outcome thereof (!) (!) . Failure to comply with this mandatory requirement can render the petition defective and not entertainable by the Court (!) .
-
Implications of Non-Compliance: The Court emphasized that non-compliance with procedural mandates, such as omitting to disclose prior similar petitions, does not automatically amount to contempt unless there is evidence of deliberate concealment or malafide intent (!) (!) .
-
Assessment of Intent and Conduct: The Court considered whether the conduct was wilful or accidental. It noted that inadvertent omissions, especially when promptly rectified through affidavits acknowledging the oversight, do not justify contempt proceedings. The Court highlighted that a litigant or counsel unfamiliar with procedural rules should not be automatically penalized for procedural lapses unless there is clear evidence of malicious intent (!) (!) .
-
Evaluation of the Second Petition: The Court examined whether filing a second petition with similar reliefs constitutes contempt. It concluded that, in the absence of evidence indicating ill-motive or deliberate misconduct, such conduct alone does not warrant initiation of contempt proceedings. The Court recognized that the belief that the second petition was narrower or different in scope was a genuine, albeit mistaken, understanding (!) (!) .
-
Discretionary Nature of Contempt Proceedings: The Court reaffirmed that proceedings for contempt are quasi-criminal and should be initiated only when there is substantial interference with justice, deliberate misconduct, or abuse of the judicial process. Mere procedural lapses, especially when rectified or excused, do not automatically lead to contempt actions (!) (!) .
-
Outcome: Ultimately, the Court dismissed the contempt petition, finding that the respondent’s conduct did not amount to wilful interference or contempt of court, especially given the absence of malicious intent and the corrective steps taken (!) .
In summary, procedural lapses such as failing to disclose prior similar petitions or filing successive petitions do not automatically constitute contempt unless accompanied by malicious intent or deliberate misconduct. The Court emphasized caution and the importance of distinguishing between inadvertent procedural errors and wilful acts intended to obstruct justice.
Antony Dominic, J.
1. The 10th respondent in W.P(C).31081/13 has filed this petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) praying that this Court be pleased to initiate suo motu proceedings under the Act against the respondent for interfering with the due course of justice.
2. The factual background in which this petition was filed is that the respondent herein filed W.P(C). 31081/13 in his capacity as Secretary (Legal) of the Association for Environmental Protection Council, Aluva, in which, the Association is the second petitioner. In the writ petition, the main prayer is to quash Exts.P7, P8, P12 and P14, which are the minutes of the Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust held on 6.9.2010, the lease deed between the petitioner herein and the Cochin Port Trust dated 26.7.2011, Government Order dated 27.7.2013 and the Building Permit issued by the Corporation of Cochin in favour of the petitioner on 11.10.2013 respectively.
3. In so far as this petition is concerned, it is relevant to note that in the writ petition, an interim relief that this Court be pleased to “stay all further proceedings in pursuance to Exts.P7, P8, P12 and P14 pending disposal of the Writ Petition (Civil)” was also sought for. The writ petition was filed on 9.12.2013 and was admitted on 20.12.2013. The petitioner herein filed their counter affidavit on 19.1.2014. There is no dispute among the counsel for both sides that the writ petition was heard on different dates. But, it is a fact that this Court has not passed any interim order, either granting or declining the interim prayer made in the writ petition.
4. Subsequently, along with the reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 10, the petitioners in the writ petition filed I.A.2167/14 dated 3.2.2014. In this reply affidavit, the respondent herein, who has sworn to the affidavit, averred that piling work was in progress in the land in question and that soon the petitioner herein would raise the building and later would raise all sort of contentions including financial loss etc. He further stated that the activities now going on in the land have serious environmental impact and therefore it is only necessary in the interest of larger public interest to stay all further constructions in the land pending disposal of the writ petition. In I.A.2167/14 filed along with the reply affidavit, the writ petitioners prayed to stay “all construction activities undertaken in Sy.Nos.31/4 and 31/20 of Mulavukadu village in pursuance to Exts.P7, P8, P12 and P14, pending disposal of the Writ Petition (Civil)”.
5. On the filing of the IA, an additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner herein, where, disputing the maintainability of the interlocutory application, it was stated that the prayer in the IA was identical with the interim petition submitted along with the writ petition and that the stay sought for was also identical to stay of all further proceedings already sought for. According to them, since the only further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P7, P8, P12 and P14 is the construction, there is already a petition pending and therefore, filing of a petition for the same relief amounts to contempt of this Court and a clear abuse of the process of this Court. On this basis, they contended that the writ petitioners were liable to be proceeded with in contempt for having suppressed the filing of a petition for interim relief along with the writ petition.
6. Thereafter, an additional affidavit dated 25.2.2014 was filed by the respondent herein on behalf of the writ petitioners. In that affidavit, in paragraph 3, he contended that the prayer sought for in I.A.No.2167/14 was a limited one as compared to the prayer made in the interlocutory application filed along with the writ petition. Proceeding further, he stated that “However by an inadvertent omission in th
