Sudha P. v. Anitha T. Balan and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944** **CON.CASE(C) NO. 1768 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.08.2018 IN WP(C)NO.19899 OF 2018** **OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **PETITIONER:** **SUDHA P. AGED 45 YEARS PANANCHIKUNNATH, MANJAKKAD, (PO)SHORNUR-679121. BY SUDHA P.(Party-In-Person)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 ANITHA T BALAN,** **AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, NOW WORKING AS THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CIVIL STATION (PO), PALAKKAD678001.** - **2 MOHANKUMAR,** **AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, NOW WORKING AS THE SECRETARY, THE AMBALAPARA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.1512, AMBALAPARA, AMBALAPARA(PO), PALAKKAD-679512.** - **3 SOMASUNDARAN,** **AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, NOW WORKING AS THE PRESIDENT OF AMBALAPARA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.1512, AMBALAPARA, AMBALAPARA(PO), PALAKKAD-679512.** ## **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **SRI JACOB E SIMON- GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.03.2022 THE COURT ON 04.04.2022, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has filed this Contempt Case, under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging wilfull disobedience of Annexure A1 judgment of this Court dated 10.08.2018 in W.P.(C)No.19899 of 2018. This Contempt Case filed on 29.01.2020 was not numbered by Registry, pointing out the provisions under Section 20 of the Act, as per which no court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt either on its own motion or otherwise after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. 2. By the order dated 05.11.2020 - **Sudha P. v. Anita T. Balan and others [2021 (1) KHC 180]** - Registry was directed to number this Contempt Case and list it for admission. In the said order, this Court noticed that, the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Pallav Sheth v. Custodian [(2001) 7 SCC 549]** is that, the proper construction to be placed on Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act must be that action must be initiated, either by filing of an application or by the court issuing notice suo motu, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 3 been committed. In that case, the fraud perpetuated by the appellant was unearthed only on the Custodian receiving information from the Income Tax Department, vide their letter dated 05.05.1998. Therefore, the Apex Court held that, the provisions of Section 17 of the Limitation Act are applicable in the present case. On becoming aware of the fraud application for initiating contempt proceedings was filed on 18.06.1998, well within the period of limitation prescribed by Section 20. In **Pallav Sheth** (supra) the Apex Court followed the law laid down in **Om Prakash Jaiswal v. D.K. Mittal [(2000) 3 SCC 171]** that, Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application and that, Section 20 strikes at the jurisdiction of the court to initiate any proceedings for contempt. 3. In the order dated 05.11.2020, this Court noticed that, the question that has to be considered on the defect noted by the Registry is as to whether this Contempt Petition is one filed after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. After considering the nature of the direction Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 4 contained in Annexure A1 judgment of this Court in W.P. (C)No.19899 of 2018, the final order passed by the Cooperative Tribunal in R.P.No.57 of 2018 and Appeal No.24 of 2018, and also the interim order granted by this Court in W.P. (C)No.30582 of 2018 filed by Ambalapara Service Cooperative Bank, in the order dated 05.11.2020, this Court found that, the question that has to be considered is as to whether the petitioner has a cause of action for filing this Contempt Petition, invoking Section 12 of the Contempt of - Courts Act, alleging non compliance of the direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment. At any rate, this Contempt Case cannot be said to be one filed beyond the time limit specified in Section 20 of the said Act. In such circumstances, Registry was directed to number this Contempt Case and list it for admission. 4. The 1[st] respondent has filed an affidavit dated 16.02.2021, wherein it is pointed out that the petitioner has not filed any application for execution of Ext.P1 award in A.R.C.No.106 of 2011 as per Chapter XI of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules. Rule 74 clearly stipulates the Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 5 procedures to be followed for execution of decision, award or orders. For executing any award or decision or orders, the holder of the award shall apply to the Registrar. Every such application shall be made in the form specified by the Registrar and shall be signed by the decree-holder and shall be accompanied by the original of the orders and the receipted challan obtained from the Treasury for the payment of fees, specified by the Registrar. The petitioner neither filed an application as per the provision in Chapter XI of the Kerala - Co operative Societies Rules nor remitted any amount as fees to Government Treasury in this regard. Hence Ext.P2 was not issued by the 1[st] respondent under Chapter XI of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The office of the 1[st] respondent is the district level office of the Co-operative Department. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.03.2018, with a copy of the award of arbitration court. Based on that representation, the office of the 1[st] respondent issued Ext.P2 communication to the Secretary of the Bank. The office of the 1[st] respondent is maintaining an Execution Register. When proper application is received with a valid challan, the office Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 6 will assign chronological number of execution petition and take legal steps, as early as possible. In the instant case, the petitioner did not file any application as execution petition. On receiving Annexure A1 judgment of this Court, the petitioner and the Bank authorities were directed to appear for a hearing on 14.09.2018, by issuing Annexure R1(a) hearing notice. But the petitioner did not attend the hearing. The Bank authorities attended the hearing and submitted Annexure R1(b) statement. In the statement filed by the Secretary of the Bank, it was stated that, against the order in R.P.No.57 of 2018 of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, the Bank filed W.P.(C)No.30582 of 2018 before this Court and obtained interim stay. The Secretary of the Bank informed the 1[st] respondent that the interim stay is against implementation of the order in R.P.No.57 of 2018 of the Arbitration Court. Hence, the entire proceedings be kept in abeyance until a final decision is taken by this Court in W.P.(C)No.30582 of 2018. In the affidavit dated 16.02.2021, the 1[st] respondent has stated that, he has taken diligent steps to comply with the direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment of this Court Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 7 and there is no wilful laches or negligence on his part. 5. Since the petitioner, who appeared in person, wanted physical hearing, the matter was adjourned on various postings on account of the restrictions on physical sitting due to spread of Covid-19. On 02.07.2021, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 seeking an order to postpone the hearing of the case till physical sitting is resumed. 6. On 16.03.2022, heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, and also the learned Government Pleader for the 1[st] respondent. 7. The petitioner, who appeared in person, argued that in the absence of an appeal filed by the respondents in W.P.(C)No.19899 of 2018, the direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment of this Court in that writ petition has attained finality. In such circumstances the respondents are duty bound to implement the direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment. Having failed to do so, they are liable to be proceeded against, under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, for their wilful disobedience. 8. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader argued that, as pointed out in the affidavit dated 16.02.2021, Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 8 there is no willful disobedience on the part of the 1[st] respondent in complying with the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment of this Court dated 10.08.2018. After the receipt of a certified copy of Annexure A1 judgmnet, the petitioner and others were issued with a notice dated 07.09.2018, regarding personal hearing scheduled on 14.09.2018. However, the petitioner did not appear. By that time, in W.P.(C).No.30852 of 2018 this Court granted an interim order against implementation of the order in R.P.No.57 of 2018 of the Co-operative Tribunal. 9. As already noticed in the order dated 05.11.2020, the question that has to be considered is as to whether the petitioner has a cause of action for filing this contempt petition, invoking the provisions under Sections 11 and 12 of - the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging non compliance of the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment dated 10.08.2018. 10. The petitioner, who secured an award dated 06.03.2018 in ARC No.106 of 2011 from the Co-operative Arbitration Court (Northern), Kozhikode, had approached this Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 9 Court in W.P.(C)No.19899 of 2018, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to implement the said award dated 06.03.2018 (Ext.P1) and also the order dated 09.04.2018 of the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar (Ext.P2), and to reinstate her in service in the post of Peon in Ambalapara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., with immediate effect from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and disburse salary and other emoluments, within a stipulated time as may be directed by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that she is entitled to get implemented Ext.P1 award dated 06.03.2018 and Ext.P2 order dated 09.04.2018 and reinstatement in service as Peon in Ambalapara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. with effect from the date of receipt of a copy of Ext.P1 award dated 06.03.2018 and for disbursement of salary and other emoluments. The 2[nd] respondent in this Contempt Case is the Secretary and the 3[rd] respondent is the President of Ambalapara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. 11. In W.P.(C)No.19899 of 2018, Ambalapara Service Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 10 Co-operative Bank Ltd., the 2[nd] respondent therein, filed counter affidavit in which it was pointed out that Ext.P1 award passed by the Arbitration Court in ARC No.106 of 2011 is under challenge in R.P.No.57 of 2018 filed before the Cooperative Tribunal. Further, Appeal No.24 of 2018 filed by the writ petitioner challenging the said award is also pending before the Co-operative Tribunal. By Annexure A1 judgment dated 10.08.2018, this Court disposed of W.P.(C)No.19899 of 2018, taking note of the pendency of R.P.No.57 of 2018 and Appeal No.24 of 2018 before the Co-operative Tribunal, challenging Ext.P1 award passed by the Arbitration Court in ARC No.106 of 2011. In Para.5 of Annexure A1 judgment it was noticed that, the sole issue before this Court is as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to an order to implement Ext.P1 award of the Arbitration Court or enforce Ext.P2 order of the 1st respondent Joint Registrar, by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. In Annexure A1 judgment in W.P.(C)No.19899 of 2018, this Court held that, for executing Ext.P1 award of the Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 11 Arbitration Court in ARC No.106 of 2011, the statutory remedy open to the writ petitioner is to invoke the relevant provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules before the appropriate forum. Therefore, the writ petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute Ext.P1 award. Paras.6 and 7 of Annexure A1 judgment read thus; “6. Ext.P1 award is one issued by the Arbitration Court, in exercise of its powers under sub-section (3) of Section 70 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Section 76 of the Act deals with execution of orders, etc. Going by clause (a) of Section 76, an award made under Section 70, if not carried out, on a certificate signed by the Registrar or any person authorised by him in this behalf, be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such court, or where the order is for the recovery of money, be executed according to the law and under the rules for the time being in force for the recovery of public revenue due on land. 7. Rule 72 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules deals with issue of certificate under Section 76 of the Act. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 72, the holder of any decision, award or order referred to in Section 76 of the Act shall, if the said decision, award or order is not carried out, apply to the Registrar for execution thereof Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 12 under clause (c) of Section 76 or for a certificate to be issued under clause (a) or (b) of the said Section. Rule 73 deals with execution proceeding under Revenue Recovery Act and Rule 74 deals with procedure for execution of decision, award or order. Therefore, for executing Ext.P1 award of the Arbitration Court, the statutory remedy open to the petitioner is to invoke - the aforesaid provisions of the Kerala Co operative Societies Rules before the appropriate forum. At any rate, the petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute Ext.P1 award.” (underline supplied) 13. Insofar as Ext.P2 order dated 09.04.2018 of the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar is concerned, this Court noticed that, by the said order, which is one issued based on an application made by the writ petitioner dated 25.03.2018, the 1[st] respondent directed respondents 2 and 3 to implement Ext.P1 award of the Arbitration Court in ARC No.106 of 2011. The fact that Ext.P2 order passed by the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar was not under challenge in any proceedings at the instance of respondents 2 and 3, is not in dispute. However, it is not discernible from Ext.P2 order as to whether it is one issued by the 1[st] respondent in accordance with the provisions Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 13 under Chapter XI of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, which deals with execution of decisions, awards and order. Moreover, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has no specific case that the petitioner has invoked any provisions under Rules 72 to 74 for executing Ext.P1 award in ARC No.106 of 2011. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that R.P.No.57 of 2018 filed by the said respondents and Appeal No.24 of 2018 filed by the writ petitioner challenging Ext.P1 award in ARC No.106 of 2011 were finally heard by the Co-operative Tribunal and reserved for orders to 20.08.2018. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that, though the said cases were listed to 20.08.2018, it was only a formal posting and not for orders. 14. After considering the rival submissions, this Court by Annexure A1 judgment dated 10.08.2018 disposed of W.P. (C).No.19899 of 2018, taking note of the pendency of - R.P.No.57 of 2018 and Appeal No.24 of 2018 before the Co operative Tribunal, challenging Ext.P1 award passed by the Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 14 Arbitration Court in ARC No.106 of 2011. This Court ordered that, if Ext.P2 order passed by the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar was one issued, based on an application made by the writ petitioner for execution of Ext.P1 award, invoking the provisions under Chapter XI of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, and if the said order was one issued in accordance with the provisions under Chapter XI, with notice to respondents 2 and 3, it is for the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar to proceed further with Ext.P2, strictly in accordance with law, subject to any interim or final orders to - be passed by the Co operative Tribunal in R.P.No.57 of 2018 and Appeal No.24 of 2018. The 1[st] respondent was directed to take necessary steps in this regard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment. Going by the averments in para.13 of this Contempt Case, the petitioner produced a certified copy of Annexure A1 judgment before the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar, on 23.08.2018. 15. After the disposal of W.P.(C).No.19899 of 2018 by Annexure A1 judgment, the Co-operative Tribunal by the Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 15 order dated 30.08.2018, partly allowed R.P.No.57 of 2018 filed by the respondents 2 and 3, whereby the directions of - the Co operative Arbitration Court to reinstate the writ petitioner in service was upheld. The Co-operative Tribunal set aside the enquiry report by Adv.Shri.Jayan and Adv.Shri.K.Sujith Kumar and also the order of dismissal. It was ordered that respondents 2 and 3 shall grant all service and monetary benefits to the writ petitioner forthwith from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement. The Tribunal had made it clear that, in case respondents 2 and 3 are advised to conduct a fresh enquiry on the second memo of charges issued to the writ petitioner, they are at liberty to do so by complying all the principles of natural justice and strictly as per the provisions of law. By another order dated 30.08.2018, Appeal No.24 of 2018 filed by the writ petitioner was disposed of in tune with the order in R.P.No.57 of 2018. 16. The Ambalapara Service Co-operative Bank filed W.P.(C)No.30582 of 2018 before this Court challenging the award passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Kozhikode, in ARC No.106 of 2011 and the order of the Co- Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 16 operative Tribunal in R.P.No.57 of 2018, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash that award and order and for a declaration - that the Co operative Arbitration Court has no jurisdiction to direct reinstatement of the writ petitioner in service, in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in **Ambika v. The Kottappady Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2018 (3) KLT 779]** , wherein this Court held that the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, has no power to direct reinstatement of a delinquent employee in service. The Bank has also filed W.P.(C)No.30598 of 2018 challenging the order dated 30.08.2018 of the Co-operative Tribunal in Appeal No.24 of 2018. 17. In W.P.(C)No.30582 of 2018, this Court passed an interim order dated 18.09.2018, whereby it was ordered that any coercive steps pursuant to the award dated 06.03.2018 - of the Co operative Arbitration Court, Kozhikode and the - order dated 30.08.2018 of the Co operative Tribunal in R.P.No.57 of 2018 shall be deferred for the period specified in that interim order, which was extended from time to time. Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 17 The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.2 of 2018 in W.P. (C)No.30582 of 2018 seeking an order to vacate that interim order. By order dated 05.11.2018, this Court dismissed IA No.2 of 2018 in W.P.(C)No.30582 of 2018 and the interim order granted on 18.09.2018 was extended for a further period of two months. The said order was under challenge in W.A.No.8 of 2019, which ended in dismissal by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 08.02.2019. Thereafter, on 01.07.2019, the interim order in W.P.(C)No.30582 of 2018 was extended by the Single Bench. 18. The judgment dated 08.02.2019 of the Division Bench in W.A.No.8 of 2019 was under challenge before the Apex Court in S.L.P.(C)No.13617 of 2019. The Apex Court, by the order dated 22.11.2019, declined to entertain the petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and that S.L.P. was disposed of with a request to this Court to consider the listing of W.P.(C)No.30582 of 2018 at an early date, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, in order to facilitate a finality being brought to the dispute under consideration. Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 18 19. During the course of arguments, the petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that, after the disposal of S.L.P.(C)No.13617 of 2019, W.P.(C)No.30582 of 2018 filed by the Bank was listed before the Single Bench, as per roster. She has filed a review petition seeking review of the judgment dated dated 08.02.2019 in W.A.No.8 of 2019, which is now pending consideration before the Division Bench. 20. As already noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.19899 of 2018 before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to implement the said award dated 06.03.2018 (Ext.P1) and also the order dated 09.04.2018 of the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar (Ext.P2), and to reinstate her in service in the post of Peon in Ambalapara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., with immediate effect from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and disburse salary and other emoluments, within a stipulated time as may be directed by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for a consequential declaration that she is entitled to get implemented Ext.P1 award and Ext.P2 order and reinstatement in service as Peon in the Bank with effect from Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 19 the date of receipt of a copy of Ext.P1 award and for disbursement of salary and other emoluments. The 2[nd] respondent in that writ petition is Ambalapara Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary, and the 3[rd] respondent is the Board of Directors of that Bank, represented by its President. Arbitration Court. 21. In Annexure A1 judgment in W.P.(C)No.19899 of 2018, this Court held that, for executing Ext.P1 award of the Arbitration Court, the statutory remedy open to the writ petitioner is to invoke the relevant provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules before the appropriate forum, and therefore, the writ petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute that award. Ext.P2 order dated 09.04.2018 of the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar is one issued based on an application made by the writ petitioner dated 25.03.2018, whereby the 1[st] respondent directed respondents 2 and 3 to implement Ext.P1 award of the Arbitration Court in ARC No.106 of 2011. Ext.P2 order passed by the 1[st] respondent was not under challenge in any Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 20 proceedings, at the instance of respondents 2 and 3. However, it was not discernible from Ext.P2 as to whether the said order was one issued by the 1[st] respondent in accordance - with the provisions under Chapter XI of the Kerala Co operative Societies Rules, which deals with execution of decisions, awards and order. Moreover, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has no specific case that the petitioner has invoked any provisions under Rules 72 to 74 of the said Rules for executing Ext.P1 award in ARC No.106 of 2011. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that R.P.No.57 of 2018 filed by the said respondents and Appeal No.24 of 2018 filed by the writ petitioner challenging Ext.P1 award in ARC No.106 of 2011 were finally heard by the Cooperative Tribunal and reserved for orders to 20.08.2018. Therefore, after considering the rival submissions, this Court disposed of W.P.(C).No.19899 of 2018 by Annexure A1 judgment dated 10.08.2018, taking note of the pendency of - R.P.No.57 of 2018 and Appeal No.24 of 2018 before the Co operative Tribunal, ordering that, if Ext.P2 order passed by the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar was one issued, based on Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 21 an application made by the writ petitioner for execution of Ext.P1 award, invoking the provisions under Chapter XI of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, and if the said order was one issued in accordance with the provisions under Chapter XI, with notice to respondents 2 and 3, it is for the 1[st] respondent to proceed further with Ext.P2, strictly in accordance with law, subject to any interim or final orders to - be passed by the Co operative Tribunal in R.P.No.57 of 2018 and Appeal No.24 of 2018, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment. 22. On 15.01.2020, the petitioner filed this Contempt Case, invoking the provisions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, against the concerned Joint Registrar, who is arrayed as the 1[st] respondent, the Secretary of Ambalapara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., who is arrayed as the 2[nd] respondent, and the President of the said Bank, who is arrayed as the 3[rd] respondent. The directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment dated 10.08.2018 in W.P. (C)No.19899 of 2018 are against the concerned Joint Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 22 Registrar, who was arrayed as the 1[st] respondent in that writ petition. In the absence of any directions issued in Annexure A1 judgment against respondents 2 and 3 therein, the petitioner cannot file this Contempt Case, invoking the provisions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, for initiating any proceedings against respondents 2 and 3 therein, alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment. Therefore, conclusion is irresistible that, this Contempt Case is not maintainable against respondents 2 and 3 herein. 23. As already noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner produced a certified copy of Annexure A1 judgment before the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar, on 23.08.2018. After the disposal of W.P.(C).No.19899 of 2018 by Annexure A1 judgment, the Co-operative Tribunal by the order dated 30.08.2018, partly allowed R.P.No.57 of 2018 filed by the - respondents 2 and 3, whereby the directions of the Co operative Arbitration Court to reinstate the writ petitioner in service was upheld. The Tribunal set aside the enquiry report and also the order of dismissal. It was ordered that Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 23 respondents 2 and 3 shall grant all service and monetary benefits to the writ petitioner forthwith from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement. By another order dated 30.08.2018, Appeal No.24 of 2018 filed by the writ petitioner was disposed of in tune with the order in R.P.No.57 of 2018. The Bank challenged the award passed by the Cooperative Arbitration Court in ARC No.106 of 2011 and the order of the Co-operative Tribunal in R.P.No.57 of 2018 by filing W.P.(C)No.30582 of 2018, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the said award and the order, and for a declaration - that the Co operative Arbitration Court has no jurisdiction to direct reinstatement of the writ petitioner in service, in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in **Ambika [2018 (3) KLT 779]** . The Bank has also filed W.P. (C)No.30598 of 2018 challenging the order dated 30.08.2018 of the Co-operative Tribunal in Appeal No.24 of 2018. In W.P. (C)No.30582 of 2018, this Court passed an interim order dated 18.09.2018, whereby it was ordered that any coercive - steps pursuant to the award dated 06.03.2018 of the Co operative Arbitration Court, Kozhikode and the order dated Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 24 - 30.08.2018 of the Co operative Tribunal in R.P.No.57 of 2018 shall be deferred for the period specified in that interim order, which was extended from time to time. By the order dated 05.11.2018, this Court dismissed IA No.2 of 2018 filed by the petitioner herein seeking an order to vacate that interim order in W.P.(C)No.30582 of 2018 and that interim order was extended for a further period of two months. The said order was under challenge in W.A.No.8 of 2019, which ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 08.02.2019 of the Division Bench. On 01.07.2019, the interim order in W.P.(C)No.30582 of 2018 was extended by the Single Bench. The petitioner challenged the judgment of the Division Bench before the Apex Court in S.L.P.(C)No.13617 of 2019. The Apex Court declined to entertain the petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and that S.L.P. was disposed of by the order dated 22.11.2019. The petitioner filed R.P.No.346 of 2020 before the Division Bench, seeking review of the judgment dated dated 08.02.2019 in W.A.No.8 of 2019, which is now pending consideration. 24. Insofar as the contempt alleged against the 1[st] Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 25 respondent Joint Registrar is concerned, the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment in W.P.(C)No.19899 of 2018 is one issued by this Court taking note of the pendency of R.P.No.57 of 2018 and Appeal No.24 of 2018 before the Co-operative Tribunal, in which Ext.P1 award passed by the Arbitration Court in ARC No.106 of 2011 was under challenge. From the affidavit filed by the 1[st] respondent dated 16.02.2021, it is seen that, after the receipt of the certified copy of Annexure A1 judgment, the said respondent issued a notice, whereby the petitioner and the officials of the Bank were directed to appear for a hearing on 14.09.2018. But the petitioner did not appear for hearing. During the course of arguments, the petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that when the notice issued by the 1[st] respondent reached her residence at Shornur, she was at Ernakulam. By the time she reached Shornur, the date fixed for personal hearing was over. Thereafter, she did not appear before the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar, in view of the pendency of W.P.(C)No.30582 of 2018 and the connected matter. 25. The specific stand taken in the affidavit filed by the Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 26 1[st] respondent is that, by the time the notice was issued, this Court granted an interim order in W.P.(C)No.30582 of 2018, whereby any coercive steps pursuant to the award dated 06.03.2018 of the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Kozhikode and the order dated 30.08.2018 of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal in R.P.No.57 of 2018 were ordered to be deferred. The said order is still in force. The application filed by the petitioner, seeking an order to vacate that interim order, so as to enable her to get reinstated in service in terms of that award, was also dismissed. 26. Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act defines ‘contempt of court’ to mean civil contempt or criminal contempt. Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act defines ‘civil contempt’ to mean wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. As per Section 11 of the Act, a High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits of its Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 27 jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits. Section 12 of the Act deals with punishment for contempt. 27. In **Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha [(2003) 11 SCC 1]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that, clause (b) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act defines ‘civil contempt’ and it means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of undertaking given to a court. ‘Wilful’ means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to constitute contempt the order of the court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extraordinary effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 28 any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. This has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 28. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decision referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that, the petitioner has not made out a case for proceeding against the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar, under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In such circumstances, this Contempt Case is closed as not maintainable. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** bkn/yd Cont.Case(C)No.1768 of 2020 29 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.19899/2018 DATED 10/08/2018 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.13617/2019 BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.08.2019 TO HON'BLE SUPREME COURT BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE JUDGMENT IN G4 SECURITY SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. V. SOHIL MAKLAI ENTERTAINMENT CASE.** **1ST RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 07.09.2018. ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK AUTHORITIES DATED 14.09.2018.**