IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 115 OF 2010 IN SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2007 SHRI VASANT PARWAR, CHIEF OFFICER OF SANGUEM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ... Applicant Versus STATE OF GOA ... Respondent Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. Kankonkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. Norma Alvares, Amicus Curiae. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. M. Salkar, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 6. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. Lawande, Advocate for Respondent No. 10. Coram:- NARESH H. PATIL & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 4th March, 2010 P.C. Heard. 2. By our order dated 25.2.2010, the Chief Officer of Sanguem Municipal Council was asked to explain as to why he has not complied with the order dated 25.11.2009 as regards to the deposit of Rs. 25,000/-. 3. The said Chief Officer is present before the Court today and has filed his affidavit. The same is taken on record. We have perused the same. 4. In the said affidavit in para 5, the Chief Officer has stated as follows: " I say that Advocate Shri H. Kankonkar, who is representing the Sanguem Municipal Council telephonically informed Shri Ashik Khan, who in turn informed Shri Prakash Naik of the Engineering Department of the passing of the order and it is through said Shri Prakash Naik that I came to know of the aforementioned order passed by this Hon'ble Court. I say that though I was informed that this Hon'ble Court had directed the amount of Rs. 25,000/- be deposited as aforementioned, I was not informed and I was not aware that the same had to be deposited within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the order. Consequently no arrangements were made on behalf of the Council to deposit the amount of Rs. 25,000/- as directed by this Hon'ble Court on or before 24.12.2009 as directed by the said order. " 5. Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of the Chief Officer submits that there is non compliance of the order because of the communication gap between the officers of the Council. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the draft of Rs. 25,000/- is ready and the same will be deposited in the Registry of this Court, no sooner the time is extended. 6. We are not impressed with the explanation sought to be given on behalf of the Chief Officer. In case the Chief Officer was informed that a deposit was required to be made, as a responsible officer, he should have been diligent enough to find out the period during which he was required to make the same. He has not at all been diligent. He has taken the order of this Court very lightly. Orders passed by the Court are required to be complied with by all concerned and with all seriousness. We therefore, extend the time by next week to the Chief Officer to make the deposit of Rs. 25,000/-, but subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/- by him. The same shall be paid by him personally and not from the public funds of the Council. 7. The payment of cost will be made within a period of One week from today. 8. Application disposed of accordingly. NARESH H. PATIL, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. MF/-