MARIAMMA THOMAS Vs. S.M. VDAYANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY: The petitioners, the two legal heirs of a deceased abkari licencee, file W.P.(C) No. 3560 of 2011 claiming that the authorities should credit to the licencee's account the departmental-management fee they had collected, and i should also extend the benefit under the amnesty scheme. The petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in O.P. No. 8901 of 1995 dated 11.08.2000. As seen, a Division Bench, in W.A. No.1944 of 2015, affirmed the ratio of the judgment in O.P. No.8901 of 1995. Precedentially bound, I allowed W.P.(C) No. 3560 of 2011 on 21.10.2015.

(2.) Later, complaining that the authorities had not complied with the judgment and not extended the benefit despite the judicial directive, one of the writ petitioners filed this Contempt Case.

(3.) The record reveals that the State appealed against the judgment dated 21.10.2015; it was after the petitioner's filing the Contempt Case, though. A learned Division Bench, through its judgment dated 11.11.2016 in W.A. No. 2189 of 2016, refused to interfere. It has, in fact, affirmed the judgment following the ratio in W.A. No. 1944 of 2015 : 2015 ICO 1556. Nevertheless, the Division Bench, considering the Government Pleader's submission, granted two weeks' time for the authorities to comply with the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 3560 of 2011. But the respondents did not comply with the judgment; instead, they took shelter under the excuse that they had already filed a Special Leave Petition before the Honourable Supreme Court. So the petitioner has pressed for adjudication of the Contempt Case on merits.