Back
2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 73467
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
RANKI.R.,
– Appellant
Versus
P.SAITHALAVI, – Respondent
Con.Case(C) 733 2019
SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI SMT.ANILA GEORGE
Once the grounds for contempt are resolved, the proceedings must be dismissed accordingly.
Headnote:
Contempt - Resource Persons - N/A - The court concluded that the contempt case against the petitioners could not proceed further as they had been re-engaged, indicating the resolution of the initial issue regarding their roles.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were previously alleged to be in contempt of court for not being allowed to function as Resource Persons. Following their re-engagement, the status of their contempt was brought into question.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the re-engagement of the petitioners resolved the contempt issue, and thus, proceeding further was unnecessary. Complaints about duty allotment were to be addressed in pending writ petitions.
Issues: Whether the contempt of court case against the petitioners should continue given their re-engagement as Resource Persons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the re-engagement removed the basis for the contempt proceedings, effectively resolving the matter.
Final Decision: Contempt case closed; further complaints to be addressed in other pending writ petitions.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2019
1. It is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, that the petitioners in the Contempt Court case have been re-engaged as Resource Persons in the project.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that functions of the Resource Persons are not being properly allotted to them. In view of the fact that the contempt alleged was to the effect that the petitioners were not being permitted to function as Resource Persons, I am of the opinion that with the said engagement, the scope of the contempt of court case is over. As such, the contempt case cannot be proceeded with any further. In case the petitioners have any complaints as to the nature of duty allotted to them, same will be considered in W.P.(C) Nos. 26390 and 34615 of 2018. Contempt of Court case is accordingly closed.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE
APPENDIX OF Con.Case(C) 733/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 ORIGINAL COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
18/2/2019 IN W.P(C)NO.26390/2018 ALONG WITH W.P(C)NO.34615/2018.
ANNEXURE II ORIGINAL COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.
(C)NO.34615/2018.
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENT ON
1/3/2019
