IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1425 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26715/2008 Dated 03/09/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MUSTHAFA, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, MANNAMTHARA, PERUNTHALLOOR P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SMT.K.VIDYA MANUVILSAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ M.C.MOHANDAS, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME UNKNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case No.1425 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T By Annexure A1 judgment, I directed the respondent herein to pass final orders in the proceedings under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2001 and Rules thereunder, pursuant to the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner has filed this contempt case complaining that the same not been complied with. It is under the above circumstances that I have issued notice to the respondent to appear in person. Now along with an affidavit accompanying a petition for dispensing with personal appearance, the respondent has now produced Annexure I order passed pursuant to the directions in my judgment. The respondent himself admits that he received the judgment from the petitioner on 10.9.2008. Annexure I order is dated 18.10.2008, ie. one month and seven days after receipt of the judgment. That being so, there is a delay of more than a month. Even assuming that the explanation for the delay offerred in the affidavit can be accepted, I do not think that the Contempt Case No.1425 of 2008 - 2 - attitude of the respondent in this matter is proper. The Rules themselves provide that final orders have to be passed within seven days from the seizure. In the above circumstances, the minimum the respondent ought to have done is to seek extension of time from this Court which he has not done. As a result the vehicle of the petitioner continued to be in the custody of the respondents for more than a month without any opportunity to the petitioner to redeem it. In the above circumstances, although I am not inclined to proceed further with the contempt case I am of opinion that the District Collector has to pay a nominal cost to the petitioner for the undue delay. Accordingly, I direct the respondent to personally pay an amount of Rs.1000/- to the petitioner as cost. This shall not be credited to the exchequer and the respondent himself shall bare it from his pocket. With the above direction the contempt case is closed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs