DR.SIVARAMAN THANDASSERY vs DR.DEVENDRA KUMAR I.A.S. & ANR.

This contempt case has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.17648 of 2008, dated 21.11.2016,

has not been complied with by the respondents. In the judgment in question, I had granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent

among the respondents, by making an application, for sanction of a Higher Secondary section by converting his school into an Aided one and the

competent Authority was further directed to consider the application and pass orders thereon after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that

he was at no time heard and also that no orders have been issued.

I have heard Sri.R.Ramadas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

The learned Government Pleader submits that, contrary to the assertions of the petitioner, the respondent has complied with the judgment in full

and that he has issued an order, dated 20.12.2017, a copy of which has been placed on record along with a memo dated 30.01.2018. He asserts

that, therefore, this case is only liable to be dismissed.

Sri.R.Ramadas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that even going by the alleged order, dated 20.12.2017, issued by the

respondent, it is clear that the judgment has not been complied with by the respondent because no opportunity of hearing has been given to the

petitioner. According to Sri.Ramadas, the order, issued without hearing his client, is thus vitiated by gross contempt and deserves to be set aside.

When Sri.Ramadas made these submissions, I asked the learned Government pleader to obtain instructions from his client as to whether the order

dated 20.12.2017 had been issued after notice to the petitioner, since the order itself records that though such notice was issued, it had not

returned after being served on the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader took specific instructions in this regard and submits that a notice,

dated 06.12.2017, was issued to the petitioner, but that it was returned to the office of the competent Secretary with the endorsement ""addressee

left"". The learned Government Pleader says that, therefore, it is certain that the respondent cannot be found fault with.

I have considered the submissions as recorded above and I am of the opinion that in view of the afore-noticed postal endorsement made on the

notice issued to the petitioner, it will not be possible to find the action of the competent Secretary, in issuing the order dated 20.12.2017, to be in

any manner at fault. That being said, the fact, however, remains that the said order was issued without hearing the petitioner. Even though no fault

can be attributed to the competent Secretary, I am of the view that considerations of natural justice would require that the petitioner be heard

again, so that the competent Secretary can take a decision as to whether the order dated 20.12.2017 requires any modification or otherwise. I

make it clear that I do not propose to set aside the order dated 20.12.2017, but my intention is only that the competent Secretary hear the

petitioner again and decide whether any modification is required to the said order.

For this purpose, I direct the petitioner to be present in the office of the Authority, who passed the order dated 20.12.2017, on 21.02.2018

between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. so as to facilitate his hearing by the said Authority. The Authority will hear the petitioner and thereafter decide whether

any further orders are required to be issued in modification of the order dated 20.12.2017 or otherwise and communicate it to the petitioner.

Needless to say, the petitioner thereupon would be at liberty to challenge the order dated 20.12.2017 or any other modified orders, if he is so

advised, in terms of law. This contempt case is thus ordered and closed.