IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 1709 of 2007(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24415/2007 .................... PETITIONER ---------------------- ARUN KUMAR, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, VENPALA P.O., KUTTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.C.ANIL KUMAR SRI.DARSAN SOMANATH RESPONDENT: ------------- MR. RAJU NARAYANA SWAMI, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.T.MAHAMOOD SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Cont. Case(C) No. 1709 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 24th January, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner alleges non-compliance of the directions in my judgment dated 10-8-2007 in W.P(C) No. 24415/2007. By that judgment, I directed the respondent herein to consider and pass orders on Ext. P7 representation in that case within two months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 2. Admittedly, an order has been passed, which is produced as Annexure R1(b) on 26-11-2007, which, according to the petitioner, was not communicated to him till the time of filing the contempt case. He has a further allegation that he has not been heard as directed in the judgment. But, admittedly, he received a notice for appearing for hearing on 3-11-2007 at 3 p.m. The petitioner would allege that on that day, the petitioner was present in the office of the respondent and he waited there and till 4 p.m. the respondent had not arrived in the office from a meeting somewhere else and therefore he left the office and no hearing was conducted. 3. Now, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating that the matter was taken up on the date of hearing at 3 p.m. itself and the petitioner appeared before him and he was heard by the respondent. This is strongly disputed by the petitioner. The dispute therefore revolves around as to whether the petitioner is heard is not. Affidavits are filed by both parties sticking their stand. However, in view of the fact that a reasoned order has been passed in the matter, which is Annexure R1(b), I do not propose to go into the correctness of the rival contentions to take further proceedings in the matter. However, I express strong displeasure about the manner in which the respondent has dealt with the matter. I also disapprove of his attempt Cont case (C) No. 1709/2007 -: 2 :- to put the blame on the Advocate General's Office and the Government Pleader for not filing his response to the contempt case in time, which prompted this Court to direct personal appearance. The respondent had a duty to contact the Advocate General's Office or the Government Pleader as to further proceedings in the case, which admittedly he had not done, but took the matter very lightly. Further, the petitioner has stated that the judgment was served on the respondent on 23-8-2007, which is not denied by the respondent. The direction was to pass orders within two months from that date. Ext. R1(b) order is dated 26-11-2007, more than 3 months after the date of receipt. The respondent did not have even the courtesy of either explaining the delay or apologising for the same. I also note that earlier also the very same respondent was summoned in another case for non-compliance with the order of this Court. However, expressing displeasure at the conduct of the respondent in strong terms, I leave it at that. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext. R1(b) order appropriately taking up the contention also that he was not heard before passing the order, this contempt case is closed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.