Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17302
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
N.V. SANJEEV – Appellant
Versus
G.JAYADEV, – Respondent
Con.Case(C)/1237/2021
ABDUL JAWAD, K.A. GRANCY JOSE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.TEK CHAND, SHRI.G.BIJU
Willful disobedience under the Contempt of Courts Act requires clear evidence of intentional failure to comply with court orders, which was not established in this case.
Headnote:
Contempt - Investigation - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 1, 2, 3 - The court found that the respondents complied with earlier court directions regarding the investigation, thus no willful disobedience under the Contempt of Courts Act was established.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a contempt petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents for not complying with directions issued regarding the effective investigation of a FIR related to temple accounts, following previous court orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the progress of the investigation and the subsequent performance of verification by officers, concluding that the investigation had been conducted without lack of diligence, thus no contempt action was warranted.
Issues: Whether the respondents willfully disobeyed court orders concerning the investigation of the temple account verified by the designated officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the respondents had taken adequate steps to comply with the court's directives, dismissing the contempt petition based on the lack of willful disobedience.
Final Decision: The contempt petition is closed.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of October, 2021 S.Manikumar, C.J.
Instant contempt petition is filed to invoke the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and for appropriate orders. Short facts leading to the filing of the contempt petition are as hereunder:
2. The petitioner is the appellant in W.A.No.1540 of 2020 as well as the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28678 of 2019. The respondents herein are respondents 3 and 15 respectively in the writ appeal and writ petition. The petitioner has sought for a direction for effective investigation on Exhibit P8 FIR. By Annexure-A judgment, this court directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cherthala, 2nd respondent, to carry out investigation and submit a final report expeditiously as possible and to conduct audit of account to elucidate the truth taking into account the contention raised in the appeal and the relevance and importance of the matter.
3. This court also directed the District Police Chief, Alappuzha, 1st respondent, to oversee the investigation conducted by the 2nd respondent appropriately, so as to ensure expeditious and time bound filing of the final report. The petitioner filed various applications under the Right to Information Act before the respondents seeking information as to the status of the investigation. Annexures B to J would prove that respondents 1 and 2 have not complied with the specific directions in Annexure-A judgment. The conduct of the respondents constitute disobedience to Annexure-A judgment of this court.
4. On 03.09.2021, we passed the following order:
“Based on the information furnished by the Travancore Devaswom Board dated 28.07.2021, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, Mr. K. Abdul Jawad, learned counsel for the contempt petitioner, submitted that the person deputed by the Travancore Devaswom Board for verification of the accounts is not a qualified accountant. As per the information furnished, he has passed S.S.L.C. and Devaswom Department ofÏcers’ test.
2. Inviting the attention of this Court to the directions issued in W.A. No.1540 of 2020 dated 03.12.2020, in particular, paragraphs 9 and 10, and also the directions of the writ court in W.P.(C) No.28678 of 2019, extracted at paragraph No.1 of the judgment in the writ appeal, the ofÏcer deputed for the purpose of accounting should be a qualified accountant and that, in the light of the reply dated 28.07.2021 (Annexure K) stated supra, the whole verification done by the person deputed is not in accordance with the directions issued.
3. Per contra, based on the averments made in the afÏdavit filed by the respondent and the Annexures, Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that the ofÏcer deputed by the Devaswom Board was a Sub Group OfÏcer, Udayanapuram, for the purpose of verification of accounts and transaction of the temple. He has also verified the accounts of the temple for 32 days. The details of verification done by the said ofÏcer, as explained in paragraph No.7 of the afÏdavit filed by the alleged contemnor, is extracted:
“7. It is submitted that the ofÏcer deputed had verified the cash vouchers of Kandamangalam Temple Committee for the period from April 2017 to July 2019, Cash receipts from April 2018 to July 2019 and Cash book from April 2017 to December 2017 and from April 2018 to July 2019. The cash receipts from April 2017 to March 2018 and cash book from January 2018 to March 2018 is to be verified to reach a final conclusion, as to the factum as to whether the offence alleged has been committed or not.”
4. Learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that inasmuch as the said Sub Group OfÏcer, Udayanapuram, deputed for the purpose of verification of the temple accounts, did not continue with the verification, on account of his transfer, request has been made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police directing the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, TDB, Vaikom, [(Annexure-R2(a)], to instruct the said Sub Group OfÏcer, to complete the verificat
