TRESA RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. K A HASHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner alleges non-compliance with Annexure A2 judgment. In that judgment, the direction is to the Vice Chancellor of the University to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 representation filed by the petitioner. Now the petitioner herself has produced Annexure A5 proceedings of the Vice Chancellor dated 21.7.2010 issued pursuant to the said direction. But the petitioner maintains that that is not proper consideration of Ext.P2 as directed by this Court. I have gone through Annexure A5 order passed by the Vice Chancellor. He has elaborately considered the petitioner's allegations against the 4th respondent in the writ petition. THE 4th respondent in the writ petition has also raised allegations against the petitioner in his written statement before the Vice Chancellor. After hearing both parties, the Vice Chancellor felt that the disputed facts raised by both parties cannot be decided by a hearing of the parties on the basis of allegations of the parties and he decided to direct a fact finding enquiry in the matter and passed appropriate orders in respect thereof. I am not satisfied with the contention of the petitioner that that is not a proper disposal of Ext.P2. I am of opinion that Annexure A5 order was the only order the Vice Chancellor could have passed in the circumstances. As such, there is no deliberate violation of the direction in Annexure 2 judgment. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed.