IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 781 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9635/2009 Dated 25/03/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEEJA HARSHAKUMAR,T.C.NO.1/1782(3), NAVARAGAM LANE,MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-11. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- JOHNSON K. GEORGE,SON OF GEORGE, AGED 58 YEARS,SECRETARY,CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. G.P. SHRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== C.O.C.No. 781/2009 in W.P(C).No.9635/2009 ================== Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in the writ petition has filed this contempt case alleging that the Corporation has violated the direction in the judgment dated 25.3.2009. My direction in the judgment was that if the Corporation intends to take any further proceedings as permitted by the order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, the same would be initiated and completed within one month from the date of that judgment. The contention of the petitioner is that no orders have been passed within the time stipulated. According to the petitioner, when this Court prescribes a time limit, the same operates as in a case of limitation and after the time stipulated is over, no proceedings can be initiated. Therefore, although an order has been passed subsequently, that would violate the direction in the judgment is the contention of the petitioner. 2. The contention of the Corporation is that subsequent to the judgment, the Corporation moved this Court for extension of time by filing I.A.No.6200/2009, in which, an order has been passed, which goes to show that the delay in passing the orders has been condoned. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. C.O.C.781/09 2 4. In I.A.No.6200/2009 I had passed the following order: “This is an application seeking extension of time to pass orders as directed in my judgment dated 25.3.2009. The petitioner in the writ petition has filed a counter affidavit opposing the same. But, I find that during the pendency of the I.A., final orders have been passed. That being so, no further orders are necessary in this I.A. Accordingly, the I.A. is closed without prejudice to the petitioner to challenge the orders so passed.” 5. In view of the above order, it is abundantly clear that the delay in passing the order has been condoned by me and the petitioner's right to challenge those orders has been saved. That being so, I do not think that there is any willful disobedience of the direction of this Court warranting proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, this contempt case is closed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge