Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 12 (KER)

Mathai v. Fr. Thomas Paul Ramban

2021-01-06

ALEXANDER THOMAS, T.R.RAVI

body2021
JUDGMENT : Alexander Thomas, J. 1. The above Contempt Appeal (C) has been instituted to impugn the order dated 8.12.2020 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court on I.A.No.9/2020 in contempt of court case (C) No.2615 of 2019. 2. Heard Sri.Mathews J.Nedumpara, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney appearing for the 2nd respondent-District Collector and Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri. Roshen. D.Alexander, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.1. 3. The appellants herein are not parties to the Writ Petition (Civil), W.P.(C).No.25089 of 2019, from which the abovesaid contempt of court case COC No.2615 of 2019 has arisen. The 1st respondent herein had filed the above contempt of court case (C) No.2615 of 2019 alleging non-compliance of the directions and orders passed by this Court in the judgment dated 3.12.2019 in W.P.(C).No.25089/2019. The appellants herein thereafter have approached the learned single Judge by filing the instant unnumbered I.A. which was subsequently numbered as I.A.No.9 of 2020 in the above contempt of court case (Civil) No.2615/2019, praying that they are directly affected by the proceedings in the contempt of court case and that if the contempt action is taken against the respondent-District Collector, it would amount to directly affecting the rights and interests of the appellants herein. The learned single Judge of this Court as per the impugned order rendered on 8.10.2020 has held that the third parties like the appellants herein do not have any statutory right to seek impleadment or intervention in contempt of court proceedings. It is this order rendered by the learned single Judge on 8.10.2020 in the abovesaid contempt of court case No.2615 of 2019 that is under challenge in this case. Various submissions have been made by counsel for the appellants as well as the abovesaid learned senior counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.1 and the learned State Attorney appearing for the 2nd respondent-District Collector. 4. After hearing all the parties concerned and after bestowing anxious consideration, we are of the considered view that the short point that is to be decided in this case is only as to whether the third parties like the appellants herein have the legal or statutory right to seek the impleadment or intervention in contempt of court proceedings. 4. After hearing all the parties concerned and after bestowing anxious consideration, we are of the considered view that the short point that is to be decided in this case is only as to whether the third parties like the appellants herein have the legal or statutory right to seek the impleadment or intervention in contempt of court proceedings. The matter in issue in that regard is no longer res integra and it is now well established that once contempt proceedings are initiated, then the matter is entirely between the court and the alleged contemnor concerned and the third parties cannot demand that they should be allowed to get themselves impleaded in the contempt proceedings or they should be allowed to intervene in the contempt proceedings etc. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Sivankutty v. K.C.Joseph : 2017 (1) KHC 940 has taken the considered view that when the court has taken cognizance of a case of contempt, then the matter is entirely between the court and the contemnor and there is no scope for any third party intervention in such contempt proceedings. 6. We are in respectful and full concurrence in the abovesaid views already rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the abovesaid reported judgment ( 2017 (1) KHC 940 ). During the course of submissions, we had also specifically queried to Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney as to the stand of the State on this issue regarding the right claimed by the third parties like the appellants for seeking impleadment in the contempt proceedings. 7. The appellants would urge that though they are not parties to W.P.(C).No.25089 of 2019, they are directly affected by the orders and directions given in the judgment in that W.P.(C)., as they are the parishioners of the church. That as they are thus directly affected parties, they have the right to seek intervention or impleadment in the contempt case, which is for enforcement and execution of the directions in that W.P.(C). With regard to the afore submission, it may be appropriate to refer to an illustrative scenario. That as they are thus directly affected parties, they have the right to seek intervention or impleadment in the contempt case, which is for enforcement and execution of the directions in that W.P.(C). With regard to the afore submission, it may be appropriate to refer to an illustrative scenario. Let us envisage a Writ Petition being instituted before this Court, seeking reliefs against the official respondents and also seeking quashment of certain beneficial orders or benefits given to the private contesting party respondents therein and praying for mandamus and directions to the official respondents to grant certain benefits to the petitioners therein and after hearing all the official respondents and private contesting respondents, this Court renders the final verdict in the W.P.(C), which is later affirmed in intra court appeal and civil appeal/SLPs by the Apex Court. Thereafter, if there is blatant non compliance of the concluded directions by the official respondents, the successful petitioners may institute contempt proceedings in which the incumbents holding the official position of the official respondents concerned, who are to obey the directions in the W.P.(C) are arrayed as respondents/alleged contemnors in the contempt petitions. At that stage, can the private contesting respondents demand as of right that that they should be allowed impleadment or intervention in contempt proceedings initiated against the official respondents, on the ground that the private party respondents in the W.P.(C) will be directly affected, if the already concluded judgment is enforced? Any reasonable and prudent person instructed on the elementary factual and legal aspects, can only negative any such plea that the private party respondents or third parties, have the right to demand so. The simple reason for this is that after conclusion of a judicial verdict, which has become final, the contempt proceedings arising therefrom is essentially between the court and the alleged contemnor/respondent in the contempt case. If private contesting respondents or third parties who may be affected by the enforcement of the already concluded judicial verdict are to be understood to have the legal right to demand such impleadment or intervention in contempt proceedings, then the conclusion of contempt proceedings may well nigh become extremely difficult or even reasonably not possible. If private contesting respondents or third parties who may be affected by the enforcement of the already concluded judicial verdict are to be understood to have the legal right to demand such impleadment or intervention in contempt proceedings, then the conclusion of contempt proceedings may well nigh become extremely difficult or even reasonably not possible. Moreover, the action to be taken in the contempt case, including the rendering of the finding of guilt or otherwise and the issue of quantum of punishment, if any of the alleged contemnor is to be defended solely by the alleged contemnor. If private contesting respondents in the W.P.(C) or third party are permitted as of right to intervene, the basic scheme and objective of the contempt proceedings and its jurisdiction would be detrimentally affected. So the plea of a legal right to secure impleadment or intervention of such parties in contempt cases is thoroughly misconceived and untenable. So the above said contentions of the appellants are only to be rejected and we do so. 8. Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney would submit fairly and that too on the basis of instructions that the abovesaid legal position already settled by the Division Bench in the abovesaid reported judgment in Sivankutty’s case (supra) ( 2017 (1) KHC 940 ) reflects the correct legal position in that regard and that the third parties do not have any statutory right to seek impleadment or intervention in the contempt proceedings. That matter is essentially between the court and the alleged contemnor. 9. Further, Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney appearing for the 2nd respondent-District Collector would submit on the basis of instructions that apart, from the abovesaid order dated 8.12.2020 rendered by the learned single Judge in the above contempt of court case (which is impugned in this Contempt Appeal), the learned single Judge had also passed yet another order on the same day, viz. 8.12.2020 in the said COC No.2615 of 2019 directing the respondent-District Collector to take possession of the church etc., and also issuing certain directions to the CRPF. 8.12.2020 in the said COC No.2615 of 2019 directing the respondent-District Collector to take possession of the church etc., and also issuing certain directions to the CRPF. Further that the State authorities concerned have already filed Writ Appeal as W.A.No.6 of 2021 as in intra court appeal to challenge the said order dated 8.12.2020 rendered by the learned single Judge in the said contempt case and that the said Writ Appeal No.6 of 2021 is expected to be listed before the Division Bench concerned within a day or two. 10. As regards the abovesaid other submissions made by the learned State Attorney, the consideration of the same need not detain this Court as those aspects are not the subject matter of the present Contempt Appeal and it is for the State authorities concerned to take appropriate steps in this regard in such Writ Appeal filed by them. 11. In the light of the abovesaid aspects, we are of the considered view that the impugned order rendered by the learned single Judge on 8.12.2020 holding that third parties like the appellants herein do not have any right to seek impleament or intervention in the contempt proceedings, does not deserve any interdiction at the hands of this appellate court. Accordingly, the above Contempt Appeal will stand dismissed.