Kerala High Court
N.Prakash vs R.Ashakumari on 11 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:41155
RP NO. 399 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1947
RP NO. 399 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.2407 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER:
N.PRAKASH
AGED 60 YEARS
SON OF LATE A. NARAYANA RAO, PRAJITH VIHAR, AYINI
ROAD, MARADU P.O. ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682304
BY ADV N.PRAKASH(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
RESPONDENTS:
1 R.ASHAKUMARI
WIFE OF N.RAMESH, JAYA VIHAR, AYINI ROAD, MARADU
P.O. ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682304
2 THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT
BUILDINGS, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA)
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:41155
RP NO. 399 OF 2025
2
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2025
ORDER
The review petitioner had filed W.P(C) No.2407/2025 challenging Ext.P17 order passed by the Advocate General, declining sanction to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the 1st respondent.
2. By relying on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Joseph Kuzhijalil v. Joseph Pulikunnel [1999 KHC 557], the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that an order declining sanction by the Advocate General under Section 15(1) (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not justiciable.
3. The petitioner contends that, in Joseph Kuzhijalil's case (supra), this Court has misinterpreted the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Conscientious Group v. Mohammed Yunus and Ors. [(1987) 3 SCC 89]. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the impugned judgment. Hence, the 2025:KER:41155 RP NO. 399 OF 2025 3 judgment may be recalled and the writ petition may be heard on its merits.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Special Government Pleader.
5. In Joseph Kuzhijalil's case (supra), this Court has in unequivocal terms held that, the refusal of consent by the Advocate General is not justiciable. If the Advocate General refuses sanction for moving the Court under Section 15(1) of the Act, right of the party is not impaired.
In light of the authoritative pronouncement of law in Joseph Kuzhijalil's case (supra), I do not find any error apparent on the face of judgment warranting its review. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE rmm11/6/2025