The Secretary, A.K.G. Memorial Labour Contract Society vs. Sri.C.Padmarajan - Kerala High Court, 22 June 2020

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1942 CONT.CASE(C).NO.761/2020 IN WP(C).NO.1438/2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.1438/2020 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER: THE SECRETARY, A.K.G. MEMORIAL LABOUR CONTRACT SOCIETY LTD., P.B.NO. 15,145/16B, FORT ROAD, TALASSERY 670 001. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENT: SRI.C.PADMARAJAN, WORKING AS THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE, KOCHI ZONAL UNIT, CENTRAL EXCISE BHAVAN, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR P.O. KOCHI 682 017. SRI.SREELAL.N.WARRIER, SC THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. --------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C) No. 761 of 2020 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2020

J U D G M E N T The abovesaid Contempt of Court case has been filed alleging non compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Anx.A-1 judgment dated 20.1.2020 in WP(C).No.1438/2020 filed by the petitioner herein. Paragraph No.2 of Anx.A-1 judgment reads as follows:

“2. Heard Sri. K. Mohanakannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sreelal N. Warrier, learned standing counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, appearing for official respondents. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of this case as disclosed in the pleadings and materials on record, it is ordered that the 3rd respondent will take up the plea made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard, may take a considered decision on the request made therein for releasing the documents mentioned therein without much delay, preferably within a period of 3 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.”

Heard Sri.K.Mohanakannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Sreelal N.Warrier, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, appearing for the respondent officer.

Sri.Sreelal N.Warrier, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, appearing for the respondent officer would submit on the basis of instructions that the respondent officer in strict compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Anx.A-1 judgment had issued a notice as well as summons to the petitioner herein ..3.. to appear for the personal hearing which was originally scheduled to be held on 21.3.2020. Now it is proposed that the hearing will be conducted on 26.6.2020. It is also pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner herein informed the respondent officer that the petitioner is a 71 year old senior citizen and that he is not in a position to travel and attend personal hearing, and to which the respondent officer had intimated the petitioner that any authorized representative of the petitioner need alone attend the personal hearing.

Sri.K.Mohanakannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, either an authorized counsel/authorized representative of the petitioner will personally appear before the respondent officer and make submission in the matter if the hearing date is fixed on 6.7.2020. 5. Sri.Sreelal N.Warrier, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent officer has no objection to the said request.

Accordingly it is ordered that, either the petitioner/ authorized counsel/authorized representative shall personally appear before the respondent officer at any time by 11.30 am on 6.7.2020 in ..4.. the office of the respondent officer at Central Excise Bhavan, Kathrikadavu, Ernakulam, and upon which the respondent officer will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner either in person/through authorized counsel/through authorized representative, and then pass orders in the matter within one week thereafter. It should also be ensured that copy of the proceedings so issued after the hearing process is duly communicated to the petitioner as well as authorized counsel/authorized representative if any, both by post as well as by e-mail id.

The petitioner's authorized representative/counsel should furnish the e-mail id of the petitioner to which such communication should be issued by the respondent officer. This Court is of the view that this Contempt petition need not be kept pending any longer. With these observations and directions, the above Contempt of Court Case (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG ..5.. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION (C)1438/2020 DATED 20.1.2020. ANNEXURE A2OF THE LETTER DATED 03.03.2020

SUBMITTED

BY THE PETITIONER.