CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Nijila Das C.M vs Prof. (Dr.) Sabu Thomas

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 27 July 2022 · Citation: (2022) 07 KL CK 0249

HON’BLE JUDGES
Devan Ramachandran, J
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Case (C) No.1388 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 366 words

Devan Ramachandran, J

1.

The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that, in spite of the directions in the judgment dated 17.06.2022, the respondent has not issued any order.

2.

However, Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the afore allegations are untrue and that an order, dated 23.07.2022, has already been issued by the University; though finding against the petitioner. He thus prayed that this contempt case be closed.

3.

I have examined the order stated to have been issued by the University dated 23.07.2022, a copy of which has been handed over across the Bar by Sri.Surin George Ipe. When one reads the said order, it is evident that the University merely says that the qualification of the petitioner cannot be accepted, but without citing any reason whatsoever. Though some justification is sought to be offered by Sri.Surin George Ipe, the law is well settled that an order has to be justified on the basis of its contents and not on the strength of pleadings to be made in a Court once it is issued.

4.

Presumably being aware of the mind of this Court as afore, Sri.Surin George Ipe submitted that the respondents will reconsider the matter and issue an appropriate order, adverting to the contentions of the petitioner, if required, after hearing her afresh.

5.

I am certain that the afore suggestion of Sri.Surin George Ipe is the best available to both sides at this time.

Resultantly, I close this Contempt Case recording the submissions of Sri.Surin George Ipe that the order dated 23.07.2022 issued by the respondent shall be withdrawn; with a consequential direction to the said Authority to complete the exercise as ordered in the judgment, after hearing the petitioner again; thus leading to an appropriate order on or before 03.08.2022, for which purpose, she shall remain present before the Registrar at 11 a.m. on 30.07.2022.

The Registry is directed to maintain a copy of the order dated 23.07.2022 as part of the Judge’s Papers of this case.

Needless  to  say,  I  leave  full  liberty  to  the  petitioner  to approach this Court again with a fresh COC, if the afore directions are also not complied with.