R. Siva Prasad v. C.S. Bhavana (Cont.Case (C) No.2032 of 2021)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MAY 2023/1ST JYAISHTA, 1945 CON.CASE(C) NO.2032 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED IN WP(C) 22291/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 20.10.2021, 21.10.2021 AND 27.10.2021.** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C)** R.SIVA PRASAD, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN MENON, KANNAMANGALATH, THURAVOOR P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA-688 534. BY ADVS. T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.) PREETHI. P.V. M.V.BALAGOPAL ## **RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):** C.S.BHAVANA, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. LATE SALJAYAN, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, THURAVOOR MAHAKSHETRAM, THURAVOOR P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN-688 532, RESIDING AT CHAITHRA BHAVANA, CMC-17, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 524. BY ADV G.SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2023, THE COURT ON 22.05.2023, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 Cont.Case (C) No.2032 of 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** ## P.G. Ajithkumar, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22291 of 2021 alleges that respondent No.3, in the writ petition has wilfully violated Annexure D, E & F orders and thereby committed civil contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner therefore filed this contempt case invoking the provisions of Section 10 and 12 of the said Act. 2. On 01.12.2021, when this matter came up for consideration, the Learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board entered appearance on behalf of respondent and sought time to file an affidavit. The respondent has filed affidavit dated 10.12.2021, producing therewith Annexures R(a) to R(c). The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit controverting the contentions in the affidavit filed by the respondent. 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appeared on instructions on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board for the respondent. 3 Cont.Case (C) No.2032 of 2021 4. W.P.(C) No.22291 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner claiming various reliefs in connection with the conduct of the annual festival, 2021 in Thuravoor Mahakshethram. The respondent herein was the third respondent in the writ petition. The petitioner would contend that various directions issued by this Court as per Annexure D, E & F orders were willfully disobeyed by the respondent. It is alleged that in total disregard of the said directions she had arranged Annadhanam at the Temple Oottupura on 04.11.2021. Food was served for more than 2000 persons and the office bearers of Thuravur Mahakshethra Bhakthajana Samithi was given permission to conduct Annadhanam. The said Samithi is a tainted one, the activities of which were under scan by the Vigilance Department in the Travancore Devaswom Board. This Court disallowed the said Samithi from involving in the activities of the temple festival. By giving permission to the Bhakthajana Samithi to conduct Annadhanam the respondent violated the said direction. The petitioner pointed out various other instances where the 4 Cont.Case (C) No.2032 of 2021 respondent allegedly acted against the spirit of Annexure C to F orders. It is contended that the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court to supervise the annual festival of the year 2021 reported such violations in his reports. The specific instance of contumacious act allegedly committed by the respondent, however, is providing of Annadhanam to 2000 persons on 04.11.2021 at the Oottupura of the Temple. 5. In the affidavit filed by the respondent, it is contended that the allegations set forth by the petitioner do not constitute acts of contempt and no action is possible on the basis of such allegations. This Court in terms of Annexure C to F Orders issued only general directions which were duly complied with by the respondent. There was no prohibition for conducting Annadhanam. Rather, the respondent did not conduct any Annadhanam but, arranged food to the persons who were participating and presenting various cultural programmes. It was arranged at Oottupura. But, the persons associated with the Sahaya Committee which was constituted for conducting the temple festival as per the orders of this 5 Cont.Case (C) No.2032 of 2021 court, made an announcement at 1.45 PM, on 04.11.2021, that Annadhanam had been arranged at Oottupura. It was so done without the knowledge of the respondent. That announcement created the entire issue. The Learned Advocate Commissioner might not have heard the said announcement and that would be the reason why he failed to report that fact. The petitioner has reason to wreak vengeance on the respondent. He is an office bearer of the Bhakthajana Samithi and a member of the committee which conducted the temple festivals in the previous years. This year the shops on both sides of the Thurvur- Chavadi Road were auctioned by the Devaswom Board directly and that fetched a good income to the Board. The petitioner and others who were the members of the festival committee during previous years did not like the said act and therefore they hurled untrue allegations against the respondent. She accordingly seeks to dismiss the contempt case. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the purport of Annexures C to F 6 Cont.Case (C) No.2032 of 2021 orders is that, the respondent should have obtained permission from this Court or at least from the learned Advocate Commissioner before arranging Annadhanam on 04.11.2021. That apart, none of the office bearers of the Thuravoor Mahakshethra Bhakthajana Samithi should not have been allowed to play a role in the Temple Festival. But, the President and members of the said Samithi were consulted at every stage and given a prominent role in various matters connected to the Temple Festival. Such disobedient acts on the part of the respondent are said to be evident from the report and additional report submitted by the learned Advocate Commissioner and therefore, the respondent is liable to be proceeded against and convicted for civil contempt. 7. In Annexure C, no specific direction was issued by this Court, except staying operation of Ext.P14, proceedings of the 2[nd] respondent the Assistant Commissioner, Vaikom dated 04.10.2021. The direction in Annexure D is extracted below: “After hearing the submissions made by the learned 7 Cont.Case (C) No.2032 of 2021 counsel on both sides, this Court finds that a Committee for the conduct of festival in Thuravoor Mahakshetram, which is scheduled to commence on 27.10.2021, has to be constituted with devotees other than those who are members of the 4th respondent Bhakthajana Samithi and those who were members of the Temple Advisory Committee for the year 2018.” 8. As per Annexure E order, this Court in exclusion of the 4[th] respondent Bhakthajana Samithi constituted a Festival Committee for the purpose of conducting the Annual Festival scheduled to be commenced on 27.10.2021. The Committee consisted of 23 members. This Court further directed that the 2[nd] respondent-Assistant Commissioner would select two persons among such members as Chairman and Convenor. The Festival Committee was given permission to constitute Sub Committees also. 9. On 27.10.2021, this Court as per Annexure F order appointed an Advocate Commissioner for supervising the activities in connection with the conduct of the Temple Festival. The direction in regard to the conduct of the Festival 8 Cont.Case (C) No.2032 of 2021 ## issued in Annexure F order are the following: “9. In connection with certain protest staged within the Temple, the 3[rd] respondent Administrative Officer has filed Annexure R2(d) complaint dated 26.10.2021 before the additional 8[th] respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police and Annexure R2(e) complaint dated 27.10.2021 before the additional 7th respondent Station House Officer. Additional respondents 7 and 8 shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no law and order issues in Thuravoor Mahakshetram, during the conduct of annual festival from 27.10.2021 till 04.11.2021. The police shall also ensure that the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court is in a position to discharge his functions effectively, without any obstruction from any corner. 10. Regarding acceptance of donations, the specific stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board is that such donations shall be accepted only through Devaswom Fund ForumI Account Book (DS Forum-I Account Book), which is subject to audit. The devotees, who are giving donation will be asked to write his/her name, amount of donation, etc., in the account book with their signature. 9 Cont.Case (C) No.2032 of 2021 The devotees will also be asked to make necessary entry in the counterfoil. 11. The aforesaid submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board is recorded. The learned Advocate Commissioner shall supervise such activities of the 3[rd] respondent Administrative Officer, at regular intervals. 12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the committee elected for conducting the annual festival of Thuravoor Mahakshetram will cooperate with the Advocate Commissioner and also the 3[rd] respondent Administrative Officer. The said submission is also recorded.” 10. The alleged violations of the directions issued by this Court are twofold. The first is that the respondent gave permission to the 4[th] respondent-Thuravoor Mahakshethra Bhakthajana Samithi to conduct Annadhanam at the Temple Oottupura on 04.11.2021, and the second is that the respondent gave accommodation to the President and Members of the said Samithi in the matters connected to the Festival. In the directions contained in Annexures D, E and F 10 Cont.Case (C) No.2032 of 2021 orders, which are mentioned above, no prohibition for conducting Annadhanam was imposed. Of course, in considering the situations prevailed then in connection with the spread of COVID-19 assemblage of devotees and others for Annadhanam should have been avoided. The contention of the respondent in that regard is that after obtaining instructions from the Medical Officer, Public Health Centre, Thuravoor South food packets were distributed to various persons on 04.11.2021. Annexure R(c) is the permission granted by the Medical Officer. 11. The essential allegation against the respondent concerning the Annadhanam is that she did not obtain permission from this Court or the learned Advocate Commissioner. Annexure G is the report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 11.11.2021. In that report, the learned Advocate Commissioner stated that he was not given prior information regarding Annadhanam held on 04.11.2021. The explanation of the respondent in this regard is that Annadhanam for the devotees or the public was not arranged, 11 Cont.Case (C) No.2032 of 2021 but food was arranged for the persons involved in the activities of the Festival and participants of various programmes. It is contended that only on account of the unauthorised announcement that Annadhanam was arranged at Oottupura, members of the public happened to attend Annadhanam and that the learned Advocate Commissioner might not have known about that fact, and therefore, he happened to submit such a report. The respondent thereby maintains that she did not do any unauthorised act in the matter of supply of food on 04.11.2021. 12. Similarly, the allegation that the respondent gave undue importance and primacy to the President and Members of the 4[th] respondent-Bhakthajana Samithi in matters connected to the Temple Festival is denied by the respondent. She also attributed mala fides on the part of the petitioner in raising such allegations. 13. No material has been placed on record to substantiate that the President and Members of the Bhakthajana Samithi took the lead role in the matter 12 Cont.Case (C) No.2032 of 2021 connected to the Temple Festival. The President and Members of the Bhakthajana Samithi were excluded from the Festival Committee. That does not mean that the President and Members of the Bhakthajana Samithi could not have come to the Temple and attend the Temple Festival. They inferentially are devotees, and certainly have the right to come to the Temple and participate in the Festival. 14. The petitioner places reliance on the report and additional report of the learned Advocate Commissioner, in order to substantiate the allegations levelled against the respondent. As pointed out above, the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner, at the maximum, would reveal that he was not given prior information regarding supply of food on 04.11.2021. From the materials on record, it cannot be said that the respondent arranged Annadhanam as an organised event intending to supply food for devotees and other members of the public attending the Temple Festival. Also, the materials on record are too scanty to find that the respondent allowed the President and members of the 4[th] 13 Cont.Case (C) No.2032 of 2021 respondent Bhakthajana Samithi to have major role in the matters connected to the Temple Festival. 15. In **S.Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman [(1985) 1 SCC 591]** the Apex Court held that in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is "wilful". The word "wilful" introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. "Wilful" means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide, unintentional acts, or genuine inability. Wilful acts do not encompass involuntary or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a "bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely". The wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he 14 Cont.Case (C) No.2032 of 2021 is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with an evil motive on his part. Even if there is disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished." 16. The above principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in **Rakapalli Raja Ram Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao [(1989) 4 SCC 255], Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana, [(1994) 6 SCC 332], Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, [(2000) 3 SCC 282], Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha [(2003) 11 SCC 1], State of Orissa v. Mohammed Illiyas [(2006) 1 SCC 275]** and **Uniworth Textiles Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [(2013) 9 SCC 753]** . 17. In view of the aforementioned principle of law only if there is intentional disobedience of the order of the Court, there can be an action for civil contempt. Materials should be 15 Cont.Case (C) No.2032 of 2021 placed on record to show that the alleged contemnor wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court. From the narration of facts made hereinbefore, we are of the view that there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the respondent wilfully and intentionally disobeyed any direction contained in Annexures D, E and F orders. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the allegations levelled against the respondent that she committed acts of contempt are not substantiated even prima facie. No action for civil contempt against the respondent is therefore warranted. This Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr 16 Cont.Case (C) No.2032 of 2021 ## **APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 2032/2021** ## PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: - ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, VAIKOM GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 4.10.2021. - ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE VIGILANCE REPORT FILED BY THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 3.3.2018. - ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 22291/2021 DATED 13.10.2021. - ANNEXURE D CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 22291/2021 DATED 20.10.2021. - ANNEXURE E CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 22291/2021 DATED 21.10.2021. - ANNEXURE F CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 22291/2021 DATED 27.10.2021. ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT DATED 11.11.2021. 17 Cont.Case (C) No.2032 of 2021 ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN WPC 22291/2021 DATED 15.11.2021. ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF BANK OF INDIA AS ON 08.11.2021 IN THE JOINT NAMES OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. ANNEXURE J TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA AS ON 10.01.2022 IN THE JOINT NAMES OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. ## RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: - ANNEXURE R(A) - TRUE COPY OF DETAILS OF THE PERSONS WHO WERE HOLDING VARIOUS POSITIONS IN 2018 AND 2019. - ANNEXURE R(B) TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 25.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, VAIKOM TO THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER. - ANNEXURE R(B) TRUE COPY OF PERMISSION DATED 03.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, THURAVOOR SOUTH.