IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1456 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.25815/2010 Dated 17/08/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- FATHIMA.K.P, AGED 20, D/O. MARAKKAR.K.P, KOOLIPPILAKKAL HOUSE, MOONIYUR.P.O, PARAKKADAVU, MALAPPURAM, IST BHMS STUDENT, DR. PADIAR MEMORIAL HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN RESPONDENT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------- DR.N.S.VALSALA KUMARI W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 54, PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER OF HOMOEO COLLEGES,IRANIMUTTOM MANAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KANNADICKAL ROAD, THADAMPATTUTHAZHAM, KOZHIKODE, NOW RESIDING AT NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== Contempt Case (C).No. 1456 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains of non-compliance with the direction in Annexure A1 judgment. The direction therein was to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 representation produced in that writ petition. The respondent has filed an application for dispensation of personal appearance, along with which, Annexure R1 order has been produced, which, according to the respondent, is due compliance with the direction in the judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the order is dated 4.9.2010, that was never communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner did not know about the same at all. In view of the said contention, by order dated 10.3.2011, I directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions from the respondent as to whether Annexure R1 order had been communicated to the petitioner and to produce proof, if it had been communicated to the petitioner. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner received a copy of Annexure R1 order on 17.3.2011 and it was despatched on 10.3.2011. The explanation now offered by the learned Government Pleader is that the respondent bona fide thought that what she has to do is to pass the order and forward the same to the Advocate General. The learned c.o.c.1456/10 2 Government Pleader submits that the respondent was not quite familiar with the administrative procedures since she was only a doctor. I am not quite convinced with the explanation offered by the learned Government Pleader. The respondent is the principal and controlling officer of Homeo Colleges and having put in so many years of service, I do not think that she is ignorant about her administrative duties. Although I am not inclined to proceed further with the contempt case, I am of opinion that the respondent should pay token costs to the petitioner. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed with a direction to the respondent to pay ` 1000/- as costs to the petitioner. This shall be paid within two weeks. The said costs shall not be debited to the exchequer and the respondent shall pay the same from her own pocket. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge