IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 Con.APP(C).No. 10 of 2011(S) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN COC.866/2011 Dated 27/09/2011 .................... APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ----------------------------- R.K.SINGH IAS, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.MAJOR H.P.SINGH, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, F.F.DIVISION, NORTH BLOCK,NEW DELHI-110001 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC RESPONDENT(S): / PETITIONER --------------- SMT.K.NARAYANI AMMA, W/O.LATE M.C.RAYARAPPAN NAMBIAR, KARANANKOOTATH, ERUVESSY P.O.,CHEMPERI VIA KANNUR DIST., PIN - 670 632. MR.V.C.JAMES THIS CONTEMPT APPEALS (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CAC NO.10/2011 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-I : COPY OF COVERING LETTER DATED 06/09/2011. ANNEXURE-II : COPY OF COVERING LETTER DATED 07/06/2010. ANNEXURE-III : COPY OF LETTER DATED 23/09/2011 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (FFR DIVISIONAL), LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI - 110 003. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag.CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. .................................................................... C.A.C. No.10 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. This Appeal is filed against the award of personal cost against the Secretary to Government, who is the appellant herein. The appellant's case is that there is no deliberate violation of the court order and as soon as the judgment is brought to his notice, he ordered it's implementation. We asked specific question to the respondent's counsel as to whether the appellant was addressed any correspondence by the respondent in this matter complaining of non- implementation of the judgment. It is seen that even the judgment itself is forwarded to the Under Secretary and there is no case that the respondent even informed the appellant against the delay in implementation of the judgment. We do not think personal cost can be ordered unless the appellant is found personally responsible for the delay in implementation CAC No.10/2011 2 of the judgment. The Secretary to Government of India is involved in large number of matters and therefore any person complaining of inaction should first bring it to his notice, and unless his personal complicity or lapse is proved the Court should not impose personal cost, which will have an adverse impact and demoralising effect on honest Government officials. We, therefore, allow the Contempt Appeal vacating the personal cost ordered against the appellant. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg