IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WA.No. 2049 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.26189/2009 Dated 29/11/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1,2, AND 4 IN THE WPC: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, COIR BOARD, HEAQ OFFICE, COIR HOUSE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI. 2. THE ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICER, COIR BOARD, COIR HOUSE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL & MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, UIDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT-3 IN THE WPC: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BABY.K.A., EXTENSION SERVICE OFFICE, REGIONAL OFFICE, OIR BOARD, POLLACHI, TAMIL NADU. 2. SUNIL DUTT, STORES OFFICER, CENTRAL COIR RESEARCH INSTITUTE,KALAVOOR.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S. SUJIN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2049 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The appellants are the respondents 1, 2 and 4 in the writ petition, who are stated as aggrieved of the act of imposition of costs of `1,000/- 'personally' on the 1st respondent in the Writ Petition, for the delay caused in implementing the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The writ petition seeks for the following reliefs: “i) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 & 2 not to make any appointments to the post of Senior Scientific Officer(Product Diversification) in violation of the Recruitment Rules; ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's complaint and take a decision after hearing the petitioner;” When the matter came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, an interim order was passed on 04.11.2010 as follows: “I had passed an order directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 within one month, as early WA No. 2049 of 2010 -:2:- as on 22.09.2010. On 26.10.2010, the Asst. Solicitor General sought time to get instructions as to whether the order has been complied with. Today the learned Asst. Solicitor General submits that a hearing was conducted on 12.10.2010. But, orders have not yet been passed because of some inconvenience on the part of the competent authority to pass orders. But, I find that no application to extend the time stipulated in the order has been filed, which means that, as on today, the competent authority has already committed contempt of court. This court is taking this matter seriously. The Court may even be prompted to direct the competent authority to appear in person to explain his conduct. The Asst. Solicitor General seeks two days' time to take appropriate steps. Post on 10.11.2010.” When the matter came up for further consideration, it was brought to the notice of of the learned Judge that, the interim order was complied with, of course explaining the reasons for the delay as stated in the affidavit filed, referring to the sequence of events. After considering the facts and figures, the learned Single Judge observed that the concerned respondent had not taken the order in its letter and spirit and there was no reason for not filing any petition for extension of time. Observing that the inaction on the part of the concerned respondent was rather callous, the 1st respondent was directed to pay `1,000/- as costs to the Kerala WA No. 2049 of 2010 -:3:- Mediation Centre 'personally' and to produce proof of payment within one week. 3. The learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants are not much worried about the quantum of costs, but the finding on guilt and the stigma; despite the earnest effort taken by the concerned respondent, who has failed at no level in taking timely action to give effect to the interim order. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent/Writ Petitioner as well. 5. The specific case projected by the appellants in the writ appeal is that, though the representation was considered well within time, as directed, and the outcome was communicated to the administrative section for further steps, the consequential order could not be issued and communicated forthwith because of the procedural delay and time-bound works which had to be completed, particularly in connection with the meetings of the Parliamentary Committee called on short notice and other mandatory meetings held in Delhi and north eastern States; coupled with the WA No. 2049 of 2010 -:4:- administrative exigency of having deployed some of the concerned staff/officers for the General Election to the Local Authorities held in the meanwhile. The factual position in this regard has been explained in para 4 of the affidavit dated 16.11.2010 filed in the Writ Petition, the crux of which has been incorporated in para 6 & 7 of the Memorandum of Writ Appeal as well. It is pointed out that a 'personal hearing' was held within time, i.e., on 12.10.2010, and that appropriate directions were given to the subordinate authorities concerned, so as to prepare the draft order, on the basis of the outcome of the personal hearing. It was thereafter, that the proceedings were forwarded to the concerned authority (Chairman of the Board, as prescribed) for having clearance and after completing the steps as aforesaid, the final order was communicated to the petitioner in the writ petition. It is stated that there was no wilful laches or negligence on the part of the appellant in giving effect to the interim order passed in the writ petition. 6. After hearing both sides and on going through the entire materials on record; particularly the “unconditional apology” WA No. 2049 of 2010 -:5:- tendered in respect of the delay of about 13 days as given in para 8 of the affidavit dated 16.11.2010 filed by the 1st respondent in the writ petition, we find that the imposition of cost ordered by the learned Single Judge can be deleted. We delete the same accordingly. Registry is directed to post the writ petition, before the concerned Bench for further steps, to consider the issue raised in the writ petition on merits. The Writ Appeal is disposed of. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb