ELIZABETH MATHEW Vs. M R UNNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this case were not parties in W.A.1663/15, the directions in the judgment rendered in which, are stated to have been breached by the respondents. The issue arises in the context of the establishment of the Mahatma Gandhi University Institute of Arts and Commerce (MGUIAC), Kaviyoor, which commenced academic courses from the year 2016-17 onwards, pursuant to a decision taken by the Mahatma Gandhi University to establish the said institute under the Self Financing scheme. It would appear that the land and infrastructure for commencing the courses were identified and made available by the Kaviyoor Grama Panchayath, and pursuant to a decision of the University to commence courses in the said institute, admissions were made for the academic year 2016-17. The judgment dated 11.8.2015 in W.A.Nos.1663/15, 1675/15 and 1681/15 came to be rendered in the context of a dispute that was raised from certain quarters, with regard to the power of the University to start a course in the said institution, as also with regard to the power of the Panchayat to offer land for the purpose of the said institution. Both these issues were decided in favour of the University as well as the Panchayat by the Division Bench in the said judgment. While finding that the University was well within its power to start the institution and manage it as a Self Financed institution, this Court also directed that the University shall ensure that the necessary infrastructural facilities and staff for the college are made available for the above purpose through its appropriate committee and further, that the University shall cause periodical inspection of the college, ensuring availability of all infrastructural facilities and staff to the college in question. In the instant case, it is stated that while the admissions were made for the academic year 2015-16, the University discontinued the course for the subsequent years viz., 2016-17 and 2017-18. A decision was also taken in 2018 for the closure of the institution in question. The action of the University in taking steps to close the institution has been called in question in W.A.2448/18, which has also been referred before us, to be heard along with the contempt of court case.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the cause of action for alleging breach of the directions in the judgment of the Division Bench dated 11.8.2015 essentially arose in 2016, when the University decided not to admit students for the academic year 2016-17. Without anything more, a contempt of court case filed more than one year after the arsing of the cause of action would necessarily be hit by the provisions of limitation under section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. That apart, we also note that the petitioners before us are the present President of the Kaviyoor Panchayat, arrayed in her personal capacity, and two others, who are stated to be students who were admitted to the 2015-16 batch of the institution in question. Petitioners 2 and 3 are stated to have completed the three year course and their only apprehension is that they will not be permitted to attend the institution for the purpose of internal assessment and for writing examinations. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the said apprehension of the petitioners 2 and 3 herein is misplaced since the respondents would ensure, as is evident from Annexure A6(a) copy of the order of the University, that for the convenience of the students to complete their project work and for completing the procedure for stopping functioning of the college, the institution will function till 21.4.2018. It is further assured by the standing counsel for the University that the students in question would be permitted to write their examinations, as also go through their internal assessment at the institution, even beyond the aforesaid date.

(3.) Taking note of the said assertions and finding that the petitioners cannot otherwise be said to be aggrieved by the actions of the University, without expressing our views on the merits of the challenge in W.P(C).2448/18, we close this contempt case as not maintainable, subject to the observations made above with regard to the safeguards put in place in respect of the second and third petitioners. While doing so, we are also mindful of the legal position that a provision to initiate action for civil contempt as defined under section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 can be presented only by a party aggrieved, except when the court which had passed the order has given liberty to third parties, who are not parties to the order to initiate action for contempt of court case.