JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.20 of 2025 has filed this contempt case, invoking the provisions under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 , alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 10.01.2025 in that writ petition. The petitioner filed the said writ petition, invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs; “1. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction in directing the Devaswom Board and other statutory authorities to permit the petitioner and its members hailing from Alangad to carry Golaka, flag, Chilambu, etc. without any obstructions in the procession related to Pettathullal commencing from Alangad and then to Erumeli to be proceeded to Sabarimala Sannidhanam with all its divine customary rites from 11 th of January till 17 th of January 2025 until a scheme is formulated. 2. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents in permitting the petitioner to carry out all the rituals and participate in Pamba Sandhya, Pamba Vilaku, Pandheerunazhi Nivedhyam at Sannidhanam and Malikapurathu Thalam, etc., with all equal rights, in relation to Erumeli Petta Thullal. 3. to direct the Devaswom Commissioner, 4 th respondent herein, to consider Ext.P5 and take necessary steps to see that all precautionary measures are taken to the petitioner carrying Golaka, flag, Chilambu, etc., without any obstructions in the procession related to Petta Thullal commencing from Alangad and then to Erumeli to be proceeded to Sabarimala Sannidhanam with all its divine customary rites from 11 th of January till 17 th of January 2025.” 2. On 03.01.2025, when that writ petition came up for admission before a Division Bench, respondents 1, 5 and 6 were represented by the learned Senior Government Pleader and respondents 2 to 4 by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board were heard, and the matter was reserved for judgment. No notice was ordered to respondents 7 to 9, namely, Alangad Yogam Trust, Sabarimala Swami Bhaktajana Sangham and Sree Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Alangad Yogam. Thereafter, the judgment was pronounced on 10.01.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board were heard, and the matter was reserved for judgment. No notice was ordered to respondents 7 to 9, namely, Alangad Yogam Trust, Sabarimala Swami Bhaktajana Sangham and Sree Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Alangad Yogam. Thereafter, the judgment was pronounced on 10.01.2025. Paragraphs 3 to 5 and also the last paragraph of Annexure A1 judgment read thus; “3. As far as prayer No.1 is concerned, representation has been made to the Devaswom Board for permitting them to carry out the customary rites from 11 th January to 17 th of January, 2025 till the formulation of the scheme. In W.P.(C)No.815 of 2018 quad hoc the Alangad Pettathullal, an earlier round of litigation was launched by an association of persons and one Ambadath Tharavadu the elected Periyon was directed to lead Alangad Erumeli Pettathullal and only the Golaka and Flag of Ambadath family was allowed to be carried out. One Sankaran Venugopal Kambilly was also allowed to carry out the Golaka and Administrative Officer was directed to issue passes to every person who approaches him with a desire to take part in the Alangad Pettathullal after verification of credentials. But the said direction was only for a period of one (1) year and similar directions can be considered for the next year depending upon the manner in which the event is held. Again another round of litigation as noticed above had arisen in W.P.(C)No.22367 of 2021 and vide judgment dated 31.12.2021 by relying upon the judgment dated 09.01.2018 in W.P.(C)No.815 of 2018, relief was rejected. 4. In order to bring a quietus amongst the four (4) sects noticed above, i) all the four (4) sects will be allowed demonstrate their Golaka, Flag, Sword, Churika and other items which are essential for the rituals in connection of Makaravilakku festival and will not indulge into any vandalism, fighting, insinuation or any acrimonious activity against each other. ii) Devaswom Board will hold function with aforesaid participation and make appropriate arrangement for carrying out the aforementioned processions. iii) Local SP is directed to provide police protection to all the four (4) groups in order to prevent any untoward incident and after the performance of the festival and provide security arrangement for devotees also. ii) Devaswom Board will hold function with aforesaid participation and make appropriate arrangement for carrying out the aforementioned processions. iii) Local SP is directed to provide police protection to all the four (4) groups in order to prevent any untoward incident and after the performance of the festival and provide security arrangement for devotees also. iv) Devaswom Board is directed to hold a conciliation between all the aforementioned four (4) sects to arrive at an amicable settlement. 5. Registry is directed to communicate copy of this order to the Special Commissioner at Sabarimala appointed by this Court, to ensure compliance of the aforesaid directions and make all possible security arrangements for holding the function commencing from 10.1.2025 to 17.01.2025. Writ petition with aforementioned directions stands disposed off.” 3. On 03.04.2025, the petitioner has filed this contempt case for proceeding against the respondents, namely, the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board and the President of the Travancore Devaswom Board, who were arrayed as respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.(C)No.20 of 2025, for willful disobedience to comply with the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment by letter and spirit to the extent it directed to hold a conciliation among four sects. 4. On 11.04.2025, this contempt case came up for consideration before the Division Bench dealing with Devaswom matters, in view of the Office Memorandum No.HCKL/290/2025- A7-HC Kerala dated 13.02.2025 issued by the Registrar General, pursuant to the direction contained in the order dated 30.01.2025 of the Division Bench in JPP No.2 of 2024. 5. On 27.05.2025, when this contempt case came up for consideration, it was reported that Adv.K.S. Sajeev Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has relinquished vakalat and Adv.Shaji Chirayath has filed a fresh vakalat for the petitioner. By the order dated 03.06.2025, the Registry was directed to list the contempt case on 05.06.2025, along with the Judge’s Papers in W.P.(C)No.20 of 2025. 6. On 04.07.2025, we heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for the respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have not complied with the specific direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment to hold a conciliation among the four sects to arrive at an amicable settlement and as such, they are liable to be proceeded against for contempt, under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 8. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have not complied with the specific direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment to hold a conciliation among the four sects to arrive at an amicable settlement and as such, they are liable to be proceeded against for contempt, under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board contended that in terms of the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment, which was one rendered on 10.01.2025, the Board made necessary arrangements for Pettathullal, which commenced on the very next day, i.e., 11.01.2025, and there were no issues in connection with Pettathullal or the demonstration of Golaka, flag, sword, churika, etc. In the contempt case, the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case to proceed against the respondents under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 9. On 11.04.2025, this Court passed a detailed order after referring to the earlier decisions on the point, which were marked as Exts.P1 to P4 in W.P.(C)No.20 of 2025. 10. Two residents of Alangad Desom, who are the devotees of Lord Ayyappa, filed C.M.P.No.3020 of 2000 before this Court seeking a declaration that the residents of Alangad Grama Panchyath are the real Alangad Yogam, who are entitled to conduct and perform all religious rites in Erumeli Pettathullal. In the said C.M.P., the Secretary of Travancore Devaswom Board filed a statement, wherein it was stated that, after the split in Alangad Yogam, two sets of Golaka and Kodikoora are being used during Erumeli Pettathullal and the allegation by the rival faction is that the other faction has made new Golaka and Kodikoora. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of C.M.P.No.3020 of 2000 by the order dated 13.12.2000. In the said order, the Division Bench found that the dispute between the two factions is a civil dispute, and it may not be feasible to decide that dispute in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the dispute can be resolved only by a civil court, the Division Bench directed either party to file a suit on the question involved. The Division Bench held that the question as to who is entitled to conduct Erumeli Pettathullal shall be decided by a competent court of law. Since the dispute can be resolved only by a civil court, the Division Bench directed either party to file a suit on the question involved. The Division Bench held that the question as to who is entitled to conduct Erumeli Pettathullal shall be decided by a competent court of law. Till then, during the festivals, it shall be led by the members of Sabarimala Swami Bhakthajana Sangham. In the order dated 13.12.2000, the Division Bench made it clear that, even though Alangad Yogam is allowed to conduct religious rites during the festival, all the devotees of Alangad can take part in the activities of the Bhakthajanasangham, which may not exert pressure for collecting any amount from the devotees. It was also made clear that, even though the Bhakthajanasangham is allowed to conduct the festival, it will not give them any right. 11. Seeking review of the order dated 13.12.2000, the petitioners in C.M.P.No.3020 of 2000 filed R.P.No.594 of 2000, which ended in dismissal by the order dated 05.01.2001, on a finding that there is no error of law in the order sought to be reviewed. However, the Division Bench made it clear that all the members of the Bhakthajanasangham as well as Alangad Yogam should be allowed to take part in Erumeli Pettathullal, and the parties should not give room for any altercation or dispute, etc. If any faction of the members wants Pettathullal to be performed differently, they need not join the main team. The Travancore Devaswom Board may allow them to have Pettathullal separately. As per the order dated 05.08.2001, the leadership should be given to the Bhakthajanasangham. 12. The petitioners in C.M.P.No.3020 of 2000 filed O.S.No.255 of 2001 before the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur, seeking a declaration of their right to conduct Erumeli Pettathullal, after conducting Pankapooja at Perumbavoor and Ramapuram Temple and also to accompany Thiruvabharana Yathra from Pandhalam Palace to Sannidhanam. They have also sought for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the members of the Bhakthajanasangham from interfering with the exercise of their rights. The above suit was tried along with O.S.No.318 of 2003 filed by the Bhakthajanasangham and O.S.No.319 of 2003 filed by Alangad Yogam and others. By a common judgment and decree dated 07.09.2004, the Additional Sub Court dismissed O.S.Nos.255 of 2001 and 319 of 2003. The above suit was tried along with O.S.No.318 of 2003 filed by the Bhakthajanasangham and O.S.No.319 of 2003 filed by Alangad Yogam and others. By a common judgment and decree dated 07.09.2004, the Additional Sub Court dismissed O.S.Nos.255 of 2001 and 319 of 2003. O.S.No.318 of 2003 was allowed in part and the defendants therein and their men are restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from making collection in the name of Bhakthajanasangham to conduct Erumeli Pettathullal and other rituals and observances at Pampa and Sannidhanam during Makaravilakku festival in the name of Alangad Yogam. 13. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.319 of 2003 was under challenge in A.S.No.218 of 2004, and that in O.S.No.318 of 2003 was under challenge in A.S.No.219 of 2004. The appellants in A.S.No.218 of 2004 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.319 of 2003, and the appellants in A.S.No.219 of 2004 are the defendants in O.S.No.318 of 2003. By a common judgment dated 26.07.2011 of the Additional District Court, North Paravur, A.S.No.219 of 2004 was allowed, by setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.318 of 2003, and that suit was dismissed. A.S.No.218 of 2004 was dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.319 of 2003. 14. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court in A.S.No.218 of 2004 was under challenge in R.S.A.No.532 of 2012 filed before this Court by the defendants in O.S.No.319 of 2003. The judgment and decree in A.S.No.219 of 2004 was under challenge in R.S.A.No.645 of 2012 filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.318 of 2003. Those Second Appeals were heard along with W.P.(C)No.10870 of 2013 filed by the Bhakthajanasangham challenging the order dated 10.01.2013 of the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board, whereby it was informed that only the claim of Alangad Yogam to perform Pettathullal is recognised by the Board. 15. In the judgment dated 30.10.2013 in R.S.A.Nos.532 of 2012 and 645 of 2012 and W.P.(C)No.10870 of 2013 [Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.20 of 2025], the Division Bench found that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.318 of 2003 have not filed the suit in a representative capacity and the publication under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has also not been made, after getting permission. In O.S.No.319 of 2003 an application under Order I Rule 8 of the Code was filed, which was allowed by the trial court. In O.S.No.319 of 2003 an application under Order I Rule 8 of the Code was filed, which was allowed by the trial court. The Division Bench found that the publication effected in O.S.No.319 of 2003 under Order I Rule 8 of the Code cannot hold good as the plaintiffs have limited the area of Alangad Yogam to certain places alone. Therefore, both the suits are not at all comprehensive to consider the various aspects concerning the rights of the devotees in Alangad Yogam. Therefore, the Division Bench, by the judgment dated 30.10.2013, dismissed O.S.Nos.318 of 2003 and 319 of 2003, leaving open all the issues for consideration in appropriate suits, which may have to be filed comprehensively enough by the parties concerned or others. The Division Bench made it clear that the findings by the lower appellate court will not operate as res judicata if any fresh suit is filed in the matter. However, the finding regarding the places included in the erstwhile Alangad Rajyam was confirmed by the Division Bench, in the light of the details available from the historical aspects. Insofar as the challenge made in W.P.(C)No.10870 of 2013, against the order dated 10.01.2013 of the Travancore Devaswom Board is concerned, the Division Bench issued various directions in paragraph 38 of the judgment dated 30.10.2013, which read thus; "38. After considering various aspects as noted above, we pass the following order: i) Pettathullal at Erumeli will be led by the petitioner, viz. Sabarimala Swami Bhaktajana Sangham through the Periyon from Ambadath family; ii) All the devotees who are desirous to join Pettathullal and to have Darsan at Sabarimala from the entire Alangad desom as found by us in para.28 above, will be allowed to join the petitioner. They will be allowed to take part in all the religious functions including the visit to the Temples concerned and other poojas and religious functions at Sabarimala and other places like Pamba, etc. They will be allowed to take part in all the religious functions including the visit to the Temples concerned and other poojas and religious functions at Sabarimala and other places like Pamba, etc. All the parties herein and other organisations will co-operate with the same; iii) The Travancore Devaswom Board is directed to issue appropriate directions in the matter through the officers concerned, in terms of the spirit of this order; to enable the smooth conduct of Pettathullal by Alangad Yogam; iv) We direct the Board and the Devaswom Commissioner to issue appropriate directions to the local officers at Erumeli, Pamba and Sabarimala for the smooth compliance of the directions as above. It was suggested by the learned Senior Counsel, Shri S. Sreekumar that this Court can direct the issuance of badges to the devotees. We need only direct that opportunity will not be denied to any willing devotees who are from the areas mentioned above and in case there occurs any dispute regarding the identity of anybody, the Devaswom Officer concerned at Erumeli will resolve the dispute by referring to the documents, if any, made available by such devotees. The Board will continue to allow all the privileges hitherto enjoyed by the Alangad Yogam during Pettathullal as well as the privileges at Pampa and Sabarimala and other places. We make it clear that the above order will have application for the present year and in future till a proper scheme is framed by the civil court. Ext.P11 in the writ petition is quashed." 16. In the judgment dated 30.10.2013 [Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.20 of 2025], the Division Bench made it clear that, opportunity will not be denied to any willing devotees who are from the areas mentioned above and in case there occurs any dispute regarding the identity of any devotees, the concerned Devaswom Officer at Erumeli will resolve the dispute by referring to the documents, if any, made available by such devotees. The Travancore Devaswom Board will continue to allow all the privileges hitherto enjoyed by Alangad Yogam during Pettathullal as well as the privileges at Pampa and Sabarimala and other places. In said judgment dated 30.10.2013, it was made clear that the direction contained therein will have application for the year 2013 and in future till a proper scheme is framed by the civil court. In said judgment dated 30.10.2013, it was made clear that the direction contained therein will have application for the year 2013 and in future till a proper scheme is framed by the civil court. Accordingly, this Court disposed of W.P.(C)No.10870 of 2013 by quashing the impugned order dated 10.01.2013. 17. Seeking review of the judgment dated 30.10.2013 in W.P.(C)No.10870 of 2013, Alangad Yogam filed R.P.No.1023 of 2013, which was disposed of by the order dated 03.01.2014, clarifying direction No.1 in paragraph 38 of the judgment dated 30.10.2013 as “Periyon from Ambadath Family will lead Pettathullal”. 18. In Sree Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Alangad Yogam and another v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2021:KER:55661] - judgment dated 31.12.2021 in W.P.(C)No.22367 of 2021 - [Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.20 of 2025] - a Division Bench of this Court held that the question as to whether the Golaka and Kodi which are in the possession of Alangad Yogam have to be used in Erumeli Pettathullal, in exclusion of that in the possession of Bhakthajana Sangham is a dispute which has to be decided by the competent civil court, which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the observations made by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 09.01.2018 in W.P.(C)No.815 of 2018 [Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.20 of 2025], the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. In the judgment dated 31.12.2021 in W.P.(C)No.22367 of 2021, it was made clear that if the petitioners have a case that there is error apparent on the face of Ext.P2 judgment, they could have invoked the review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On the other hand, if they have a case that the reasoning or observations of the Division Bench in Ext.P2 judgment are erroneous, they could have challenged that judgment by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. Therefore, the Division Bench in the judgment dated 31.12.2021 held that, in view of the aforesaid findings in the judgment in W.P.(C)No.815 of 2018, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in W.P.(C)No.22367 of 2021 and the writ petition was accordingly dismissed; however without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to establish their claim in relation to Golaka and Kodi by approaching the competent civil court. 19. 19. The aforesaid judgment was followed by the decision in Alangad Yogam Trust v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022:KER:1116] - judgment dated 10.01.2022 in W.P.(C)No.245 of 2022 - [Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)No.20 of 2025]. That writ petition was filed by Alangad Yogam Trust seeking various reliefs, including a writ of mandamus commanding the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Devaswom Commissioner to ensure that the members of the said Trust are given due and equal representation in Erumeli Pettathullal and they are issued with passes to participate in the Pettathullal. That writ petition ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 10.01.2022, since the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for. In paragraph 17 of that judgment, this Court issued certain directions, which shall govern the conduct of Erumeli Pettathullal. Paragraphs 15 to 18 of the judgment dated 10.01.2022 in W.P.(C)No.245 of 2022 read thus; “15. From the statement filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, it appears that at present four groups are claiming right to participate in Erumeli Pettathullal, namely, (i) Alangad Yogam Sabarimala Swami Bhakta Jana Sangham (Manjapra Kara); (ii) Sabarimala Ayyappa Swami Temple, Alangad Yogam (Kunnukara); (iii) Sree Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Alangad Yogam (Chembola Kalari) and (iv) Alangad Yogam Trust. As already noticed in the order dated 07.01.2022, in Ext.P1 order dated 13.12.2000 in C.M.P.No.3030 of 2000, a Division Bench of this Court has made it clear that, even though Alanghad Yogam Sabarimala Swamy Bhaktajanasanghom (5 th respondent herein) was allowed to conduct religious rites during the festival, all the devotees of Alanghad can take part in the activities of the Bhaktajanasanghom, which may not exert pressure for collecting any money from the devotees. 16. In the statement filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, it is pointed out that some of the above factions do not proceed to Sabarimala after Pettathullal at Erumeli Sastha Temple. The rituals in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal is completed only after ceremonies at Sannidhanam. Passes issued to the members, who are participating in the Pettathullal, are non-transferable, which is being sold to others after collecting money. Therefore, strict instructions are required to be issued in this regard. 17. The rituals in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal is completed only after ceremonies at Sannidhanam. Passes issued to the members, who are participating in the Pettathullal, are non-transferable, which is being sold to others after collecting money. Therefore, strict instructions are required to be issued in this regard. 17. Having considered the pleadings and the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we deem it appropriate to direct the Travancore Devaswom Board to take stringent action against any organisation, which is collecting money from the devotees in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal. Eligible persons, who are permitted to participate in Erumeli Pettathullal, shall be issued with passes by the Deputy Commissioner, Pathanamthitta or the Administrative Officer, Erumeli Devaswom, only after verifying their identity with reference to the Aadhaar card or electoral I.D. Those persons shall carry I.D. proof, along with the pass, while proceeding from Pamba to Sannidhanam. Only those persons, who are holding the pass along with the valid I.D. proof shall be permitted to proceed to Sabarimala. 18. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed, since the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for. However, the directions contained in paragraph 17 of this judgment shall govern the conduct of Erumeli Pettathullal.” 20. The judgment of this Court dated 10.01.2022 in W.P.(C)No.245 of 2022 is one rendered after taking note of the law laid down in the earlier decision in Sree Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Alangad Yogam [2021:KER:55661] - [Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.20 of 2025] that the question as to whether the Golaka and Kodi which are in the possession of Alangad Yogam have to be used in Erumeli Pettathullal, in exclusion of that in the possession of Bhakthajana Sangham is a dispute which has to be decided by the competent civil court, which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21. As noticed in the order dated 11.04.2025 in this contempt case, even after the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petitions, the dispute in connection with the use of Golaka and Kodi in Erumeli Pettathullal was raised before this Court in another writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, i.e., in W.P.(C)No.20 of 2025, which was disposed of by Annexure A1 judgment dated 10.01.2025. 22. 22. On a perusal of the Judges’ papers in W.P.(C)No.20 of 2025, we notice that the petitioner filed that writ petition before this Court on 01.01.2025, producing therewith, in addition to Exts.P1 to P4 judgments, Ext.P5 representation dated 23.12.2024 made before the Devaswom Commissioner. The 4 th and 5 th paragraphs of that representation read thus; “It is pertinent to note that, last year as well we were also permitted to carry out the rituals and follow the custom. However. despite the same, we are now restrained from carrying out the rituals and the customs in the hereditary manner, as stated herein above. We undertake and reiterate that we will comply with all the statutory regulations and the various directions issued by courts of law in the issue involved. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to issue necessary directions in facilitating us to carry out the rituals and customs related to Erumeli Pettathullal as specified hereinabove by all its religious spirit, commencing from 11 th of January 2025 till the related ceremonies are completed by 19 th of January 2025 during Erumeli Petta Thullal rituals until it reaches Sabarimala Sannidhanam.” 23. The relief sought for in Ext.P5 representation dated 23.12.2024 was in respect of Erumeli Pettathullal for the year 1200ME (2025), which was scheduled to commence from 11.01.2025 till 17.01.2025. In the contempt case, it is stated that despite the direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment, no fruitful steps were taken by the Travancore Devaswom Board until now, and there is every possibility that the said issue will be precipitated further during the upcoming Makaravilakku Pettathullal as well. Paragraph 6 of the contempt case reads thus; “6. Despite the same, no fruitful steps are taken by the Devaswom Board represented by the respondent herein until now, and there is every possibility that the said issue will be precipitated further during the course of the upcoming Makaravilaku Pettathullal as well. The Hon’ble Court was pleased to issue such a direction with an intention to prevent indulging into vandalism and acrimonious activity against each other in the name of the customary and religious practices related to Lord Ayyappan. The Hon’ble Court was pleased to issue such a direction with an intention to prevent indulging into vandalism and acrimonious activity against each other in the name of the customary and religious practices related to Lord Ayyappan. Since nothing transpired, a copy of the judgment was again sent to the respondents vide registered post for further follow-up actions to hold a conciliation talk with regard to the subject issue, so as to reach an amicable settlement curbing all the untoward conducts form any quarters hereafter. A true copy of the representation dated 15.03.2025 submitted by the petitioner Yogam to the respondents is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A2. Despite the same, nothing transpired until now. Copy of the postal receipts dated 17.03.2025 issued by the Postal Department (2 in nos.) is produced herewith which may be marked as Annexure A3. A true copy of the Acknowledgment card dated 22.03.2025 issued by the Postal Department evidencing receipt of notice by the first respondent is produced herewith which may be marked as Annexure A4. A true copy of the Acknowledgment card dated 22.03.2025 issued by the Postal Department evidencing receipt of notice by the second respondent is produced herewith which may be marked as Annexure A5.” (underline supplied) 24. In the memorandum of charges against respondents 1 and 2, which are similarly worded, it is stated that the said respondents have wilfully neglected the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment of this Court in its full spirit and thereby they have committed civil contempt of court as defined in Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and therefore liable to be punished for the same in accordance with law. 25. Going by the averments in the contempt case and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents are liable to be proceeded against for contempt, under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, since there is willful disobedience in complying with the specific direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment dated 10.01.2025 in W.P.(C)No.20 of 2025 to hold a conciliation among the four sects to arrive at an amicable settlement. 26. 26. On the above aspect, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that in terms of the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment, which was one rendered on 10.01.2025, the Board made necessary arrangements for Pettathullal, which commenced on the very next day, i.e., 11.01.2025, and there were no issues in connection with Pettathullal or demonstration of Golaka, flag, sword, churika, etc. 27. The relief sought for in Ext.P5 representation dated 23.12.2024 was in respect of Pettathullal for the year 1200ME (2025), which was scheduled to commence from 11.01.2025 to 17.01.2025. In the writ petition it was alleged that, despite the submission of Ext.P5 representation, nothing transpired until 01.01.2025, the date on which that writ petition was filed before this Court. 28. In the memorandum of charges against respondents 1 and 2, it is alleged that they have wilfully neglected the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment of this Court in its full spirit. In Annexure A2 representation dated 15.03.2025 made by the petitioner before the Travancore Devaswom Board and its President, the petitioner has no case that there were any issues in connection with Pettathullal for the year 1200ME (2025) or demonstration of Golaka, flag, sword, churika, etc. The averments in the said representation would indicate that the intention of the petitioner is for holding a conciliation between the four sects in order to arrive at an amicable settlement with regard to the right of participation in Pettathullal and the manner of demonstration of the Golaka, flag, sword, churika, etc., till the dispute is decided by the competent civil court. 29. As already noticed hereinbefore, in the judgment dated 30.10.2013 in R.S.A.Nos.532 of 2012 and 645 of 2012 and W.P.(C)No.10870 of 2013 [Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.20 of 2025] the Division Bench issued various directions in paragraph 38 of that judgment regarding the conduct of Pettathullal. In the said judgment the Division Bench has made it clear that the direction contained therein will have application for the year 2013 and in future till a proper scheme is framed by the civil court. 30. It is pertinent to note that, in the judgment dated 10.01.2022 in W.P.(C)No.245 of 2022 [Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)No.20 of 2025] this Court noticed that passes issued to the members, who are participating in Pettathullal, are non-transferable, which is being sold to others, after collecting money. 30. It is pertinent to note that, in the judgment dated 10.01.2022 in W.P.(C)No.245 of 2022 [Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)No.20 of 2025] this Court noticed that passes issued to the members, who are participating in Pettathullal, are non-transferable, which is being sold to others, after collecting money. Therefore, in the said judgment this Court directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to take stringent action against any organisation, which is collecting money from the devotees in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal. 31. As per clause (b) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 , ‘civil contempt’ means 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. 32. The power vested in the High Court, both under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 , to punish for contempt is drastic. The very nature of the power casts a duty on the Court to exercise the same with care and caution. More often, the adjudication of the plea of contempt involves the determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Court cannot travel beyond the four corners of the judgment of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the said judgment or the order. Only such directions which are explicit or manifestly self-evident in the judgment or order in respect of which disobedience is alleged can be taken into account for consideration as to whether there has been any wilful disobedience or violation of the same. 33. The direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment directing the Travancore Devaswom Board to hold a conciliation between all the four sects to arrive at an amicable settlement cannot be interpreted as a settlement with regard to the right of participation in Pettathullal and the manner of demonstration of the Golaka, flag, sword, churika, etc., till the dispute is decided by the competent civil court, since the said issue is covered by the directions contained in the judgment dated 30.10.2013 of the Division Bench in R.S.A.Nos.532 of 2012 and 645 of 2012 and W.P.(C)No.10870 of 2013 [Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.20 of 2025]. In such circumstances, we find that this contempt case is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court, which is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this contempt case is dismissed.