IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 833 of 2011(S) -------------------------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.5064/2011 DTD. 04/03/2011 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- M.R. UDAYABHANU, S/O. K. RAMAN, AGED 52 YEARS, FIRST GRADE OVERSEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ELECTRICAL), THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. T. BABU RAJ, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2. MANOJ JOSHI, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. R1 & R2 BY ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI. K.A. JALEEL. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CON. CASE (C).NO.833/2011-S: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.5064/2011 DTD. 04/03/2011. ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 24/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :- ANNEXURE R1.A: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DPC MET ON 04/11/2011. ANNEXURE R1.B: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DPC/15929/2010 DTD. 14/11/2011. ANNEXURE R1.C: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. DPC/15929/2010 DTD. 14/11/2011. ANNEXURE R1.D: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EC1/587/2011 DTD. 15/11/2011. ANNEXURE R1.E: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEARING NO. EC1/3620/2011 DTD. 18/11/2011. ANNEXURE R2.A: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 4/11/2011. ANNEXURE R2.B: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEARING NO. EC1- 3620/2011/DTD. 18/11/2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Con. Case (C) No.833 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T This contempt case is filed complaining of non- compliance with the directions in Annexure I judgment. The directions have already been complied with. But I have posted this case to consider the question as to whether because of the conduct of the respondents, I should impose costs on them for the delay in complying with the judgment. I was constrained to take this view because of the following situation: The contempt case came up on 01.08.2011 and I granted two weeks' time to the Government Pleader to get instructions. On 17.8.2011, I passed the following order: “It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that I have already granted extension of time to comply with the directions in Annexure-I judgment till 20.09.2011. Post on 26.09.2011.” When the matter was taken up on 26.9.2011, compliance was not yet reported. Therefore, I ordered notice in this Con. Case (C) No.833 of 2011 -2- contempt case to the respondents. It again came up on 14.11.2011. Still, compliance was not reported. Only on 14.11.2011, I.A. No.693/2011 was filed seeking to dispense with personal appearance of the 1st respondent claiming compliance. It is under the above circumstances, I posted this case to consider the question as to whether the respondents should be directed to pay costs. 2. There is another reason also for taking this course. There is a general tendency among Government officers to sit on orders and judgments of this Court. It has come to a stage that directions in judgments are being complied with only after filing contempt cases, even without filing applications for extension of time. Therefore, I wanted to convey a message to Government officers that this Court will not condone such indiscretions. 3. I have heard the matter today. 4. Although I did not direct their appearance, respondents are present today. They express regret and undertake that they will not repeat this conduct in future. Con. Case (C) No.833 of 2011 -3- In the above circumstances, taking a lenient view, I close the contempt case with a direction that such indiscretions on the part of Government officers in the matter of compliance with judgments of this Court would be viewed seriously and belated reporting of compliance will meet with award of costs. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/