K.V.Shyamala v. V.S.Senthil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/27TH JYAISHTA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 680 of 2015 (S) ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29154/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 06-11-2014 PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION: - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.V.SHYAMALA, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.M.KRISHNAN, 'ANAKA'.P.O, CHERIKKOD, KANJILLERY, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR-670631(HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT(MALAYALAM), K.P.C.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, P.O.PATTANUR, KANNUR-670595).

BY ADV. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN THE WRIT PETITION: - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V.S.SENTHIL, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION & ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

BY Sr. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. VINCENT THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Con.Case(C).No. 680 of 2015 (S) ------------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:

ANNEXURE 1 :

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2014 IN W.P. (c) No. 29154/2014 (T) OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE :- NIL.

// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/-

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

--------------------------------------- Contempt Case No. 680 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2015

JUDGMENT

Since Exhibit P5/P7 revision was disposed of by the respondent authority on 15.05.2015, I do not see any valid ground for the petitioner to maintain the Contempt Case.

2. Indeed, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that though this Court directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's revision in the light of the judicial dictum laid down by this Court earlier, but the respondent authority has not taken into consideration the said dictum.

3. Be that as it may, it is a matter of merit to be adjudicated upon, for an authority who has the power to decide can decide in the manner he deems right. There cannot be any contempt on the ground that an issue has been decided wrongly.

In the facts and circumstances, the Contempt Case is closed.

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-