Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33951
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944 CON.CASE(C) NO. 912 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10816/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER: M.K.UTHAMAN AGED 51 YEARS S/O.M.K.KUMARAN, RESIDING AT MANAPPURATHU HOUSE, WARD.8,THAIKKATTUSSERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MANAPPURAM.P.O, CHERTHALA-688526.
BY ADVS.
KALEESWARAM RAJ VARUN C.VIJAY RESPONDENT:
SRI.T.P. SALIM KUMAR, THOPPIL HOUSE,SARANG,HOUSE NO.24/188,THANDASSERY ROAD, PULARI RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, NETTOOR SOUTH, NETTOOR, ERNAKULAM-682040.
BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2022, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).1412/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1412 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10816/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER:
UTHAMAN M.K.
AGED 51 YEARS S/O.M.K.KUMARAN, RESIDING AT MANAPPURATHU HOUSE, WARD 8, THAIKATTUSSERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MANAPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA-688526.
BY ADVS.
KALEESWARAM RAJ VARUN C.VIJAY MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE RESPONDENT:
SRI.T.P.SALIM KUMAR THOPPIL HOUSE, SARANG, HOUSE NO.24/188, THANDASSERY ROAD, PULARI RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, NETTOOR SOUTH, NETTOOR, ERNAKULAM-682040.
BY ADV. P.C. SASIDHARAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2022, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).912/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Contempt Case (C) Nos.912 and 1412 of 2021 `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2022
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10816/2021 has filed these contempt cases against the 4th respondent in the writ petition. Both the cases arise from the same interim order dated 07.05.2021 in W.P.(C) No.10816/2021.
2. The writ petition was filed seeking for a declaration that the Kerala Maritime Board is an Autonomous entity and hence entitled to have minimal governmental interference only to the extent prescribed in the Kerala Maritime Act. When the writ petition came up for admission on 07.05.2021, this Court passed an interim order to the following effect:-
“Admit.
The learned Government Pleader takes notice for Respondent 1. The learned Standing Counsel Sri. K.P. Sudheer takes notice for Respondent 2.
In the meanwhile, there will be an interim order directing respondents 3 and 4 to act only under the supervision and instructions of the 2nd respondent-Board.”
3. In COC No.912/2021, the petitioner alleges that vide e-mail dated 31.03.2021, Agenda was upgraded seeking approval of the Board to direct the respondent to make payments to service providers including vehicle operators of CEO and Chairman, Advertising Company, Standing Counsel, Senior Counsel of the Board, Senior Counsel engaged at the Supreme Court and the Advocate on Record. The Agenda was approved by the Board on 07.04.2021 and the respondent was directed to make payments to service providers. However, the respondent has willfully refused to make payments to service providers and acted in violation of the Board's instructions.
4. The petitioner further alleges that on 12.05.2021, the Chairman instructed the 4th respondent to take necessary steps to ensure that all safety measures are taken by the concerned officers in the light of Cyclone and Thunderstorm warning in the Kerala Coast. The respondent willfully disobeyed the Chairman. It is further alleged that the 4th respondent willfully refused to organise the 18th Board meeting called by the Chairman. The respondent purposefully and unilaterally disrupted the functioning of the Board by keeping Cochin Head Office of the Board closed for two weeks.
5. In COC.1412/2021, the petitioner alleges that the respondent failed to ensure that all Ports are well equipped to receive ships, that all equipments are operational and that the Port operations take place without any hurdle. The petitioner states that in the month of June, 2021, no tug was available at the Azhikkal Port and there was no staff available to operate equipments at the Port. It was further alleged that the respondent did not obey the direction of the Chairman to commence dredging at Azhikkal Port in January, 2021. The respondent also failed to provide details of budget fund allotment, to the Chairman.
6. The respondent resisted the writ petition filing affidavits. The respondent stated that there was no Thunderstorm in Kerala Coast in the month of June. The respondent had inspected all Port Officers to take safety measures. The allegation that the respondent refused to report to the Chairman is without any substance. The respondent stated that it is for the CEO to issue notice of meeting and there was no sufficient notice in respect of the meeting convened by the Chairman. Furthermore, a communication was received from the Secretary to Government, Port Department requesting to postpone the meeting.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondent.
8. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the Kerala Maritime Board is an Autonomous entity and it is entitled to have minimal governmental interference. On 07.05.2021, this Court passed an interim order directing the 4th respondent to act only under the supervision and inspection of the 2nd respondent-Board. 9. The allegations in the Contempt of Court Cases relate to certain acts and omissions on the part of the 4th respondent. The Kerala Maritime Board represented by its Chairman was a party to the w
