Shibu G vs Dr. B. Sheela

Anu Sivaraman, J.

This Contempt Case is filed alleging non compliance with the directions contained in Annexure 1 judgment.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that communications have been issued to the petitioner by the Principal of the Government Medical College as Annexure A5 and by the 2nd respondent, Secretary of the Grama Panchayat as Annexure A6, which are contended to be in violation of the directions issued. It is stated that it is evident from the information gathered under the Right to Information Act that there is no proposal for construction on the site and that the notices issued are, therefore, in violation of Annexure-1 judgment.

An affidavit has been placed on record by the 1st respondent specifically stating that the petitioner was running the Canteen in the hospital premises in an unauthorised manner without any contract or license from 01.12.2018. It is stated that pursuant to the judgment of this Court, evidenced by Annexure-1, multiple opportunities were given to the petitioner to run a canteen in the new Canteen building constructed for the said purpose within the premises of the Thrissur Medical College and also for participating in the E-tender invited by the Medical College Hospital Development Society in December 2019 and January 2020. However, the petitioner did not participate in the said tender and steps for functioning of a new canteen in the hospital premises are complete. It is submitted that the tender proceedings are complete and letter of acceptance was issued to the successful tenderer on 26.12.2022 and agreement was entered into on 11.01.2023.

It is submitted that Annexure R1(a) representation had been submitted as early as on 29.11.2018 by the petitioner and sufficient time had been granted to the petitioner. It is further stated that the canteen was operating under totally unhygienic conditions and no steps were taken to improve the said situation in spite of intimations. It is contended that in the light of the specific directions issued by this Court, there is absolutely no contempt committed by the respondents.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayat would also contend that notices had been issued to the petitioner only because of the unhygienic condition in which the canteen was functioning and that there is no question of any contempt of court being committed by the said respondent also.

Having considered the contentions advanced on both sides, I notice that the judgment of this Court, which is produced as Annexure-1, only records the submission made by the respondents that some time can be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises. The respondent had specifically contended that the canteen is being run without any license from the local authority concerned and that the petitioner did not have any right to contend that the canteen could be operated in the premises without any license or contract with the medical college. However, it was only considering the need for a canteen in the premises that the judgment had been rendered. In view of the fact that an e-tender has been invited and finalised for the running of a canteen in the premises, I am of the opinion that the contention that the communications, which are produced, are in violation of the directions contained in the judgment cannot be accepted. This Court, as a matter of fact, had not found that the petitioner had any right to continue in the premises and the permission to continue in occupation was only permissive in nature.

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that, the contempt of court case is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.