The court ruled that without explicit directives in judicial orders, contempt proceedings cannot be established, emphasizing that policy decisions by government cannot be mandated through contempt actions.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

This Contempt Case (Civil) is filed by the appellant in W.A. No.2536 of 2019 on the file of this Court, under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging non-compliance of the directions contained in the judgment dated 04.03.2024 issued by this Court while allowing the writ appeal.

2. The petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.41845 of 2018, challenging the Government Order by which the application filed by the petitioner for permission to start a new Arts and Science College in the aided sector was rejected. By the judgment dated 02.12.2019, the learned Single Judge upheld the Government Order and dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.A.No.2536 of 2019 and by the judgment dated 04.03.2024 a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal directing the State Authority to pass fresh orders keeping in mind that the object of the petitioner is to establish the College in Neyyattinkara Taluk where the Nadar community is one of the dominant communities and the fact that permission has been granted to SC/ST community as per G.O.(MS) No.572/2021/HEDN. It is alleging non-compliance of the said direction by the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, who was the 2^nd respondent in the writ appeal, the present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner-appellant.

3. On 27.03.2025, when this contempt case came up for consideration, at the request of the learned Senior Government pleader, the case was adjourned to 10.04.2025, making it clear that if a decision was not taken till that date, it is open to the respondent to take the decision before the next hearing date.

4. On 10.04.2025, when this contempt case was taken up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench dated 04.03.2024 in W.A.No.2536 of 2019 was complied with and sought time to place the said fact on record by way of an affidavit. However, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the judgment was not complied with.

5. Along with a memo dated 07.04.2025, the learned Senior Government Pleader produced a Government Order dated 06.04.2025 bearing No. G.O.(Rt) No.441/2025/HEDN. It is stated in the memo that in obedience to the directions in the judgment in the writ appeal, the Government has issued the said Order.

6. On 09.07.2025, after hearing the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in part, this Court directed the Registry to incorporate the Judges’ papers in W.A. No.2536 of 2019 along with this contempt case.

7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-appellant and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

8. The learned Senior Counsel addressed extensive arguments inviting our attention to various writ petitions filed by the petitioner before this Court seeking the relief that was finally claimed in W.P.(C)No.41845 of 2018 and the various orders passed by the Government in consequence to the directions issued by this Court in those writ petitions. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the order dated 06.04.2025 produced by the learned Senior Government Pleader, along with the memo dated 07.04.2025, is not in consonance with the direction issued by this Court