IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1321 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.21336/2002 Dated 11/07/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.M. VEERANKUTTY MASTER, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED, AGED 87 YEARS, PRESIDENT, PULIKKAL KAVAKI BUNNAYYIRA SANGHAM NO.6 OF 1962, PULIKKAL.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RAJESH GOPAL, THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, MALAPPURAM, KERALA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- Contempt Case (C).1321/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Going by the affidavit filed by the respondent, in which he has admitted that he proceeded to pass an order without hearing the parties, in spite of the specific directions issued in this regard, an inference that the directions issued in the judgment have not been complied with, is perfectly justified. Pursuant to the observations made by this Court on an earlier occasion, after this Contempt of Court case itself was instituted, and presumably on advice made by the learned Government Pleader, respondent proceeded to pass a fresh order, after hearing the parties. Mr.George Poonthottam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the exercise so undertaken by the respondent is only an attempt to make it appear that he has proceeded to comply with the directions issued by this Court. The subsequent order passed by the respondent is the subject matter of independent challenge before this Court. 2. I am of the view that the facts stated above as are discernible from the pleadings, would suggest that the C.O.C.1321/2008 2 initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act will be justified. But paying heed to the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader and taking note of the fact that the order subsequently passed by the respondent is independently challenged, I refrain from doing so, but this is on condition that the respondent pays an amount of Rs.7,500/- as costs to the petitioner. It is made clear that he shall pay the same out of his pocket and shall not try to pass it off as the liability of the Office of the District Registrar. I also express displeasure of this Court on the conduct of the respondent. It is upto the department to take appropriate action in this regard. Costs shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which the petitioner may produce before the respondent. Subject to the above, Contempt of Court case is closed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs