IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1802 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10638/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUDHAKUMARI.R, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.AJITH PRASAD A.R., HIMASHYLAM, KALLERI LANE, CHERANELLORE, KOCHI-34, CHERANELLORE VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION SIKSHA KENDRA 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI-110 092, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VINCENT JOSHY, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN). ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 2. VINCENT JOSY, SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SIKSHA KENDRA-2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI - 92. (ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.817 DTD.17.12.08) ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1 & R2 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== C.C.O.No. 1802 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this contempt case alleging non- compliance with my direction in Annexure A1 judgment. By Annexure A1 judgment I directed the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P22 representation filed by the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is admitted before me that subsequent to filing of this contempt case, orders have been passed as directed, but after more than 5 months from the due date. The petitioner, therefore, presses for costs. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that non-compliance was for circumstances beyond the control of the respondents. According to the counsel, the petitioner herself asked for more detailed consideration of her claim based on further documents produced by her and therefore, the delay in complying with the direction was not deliberate. He also submits that it is not pursuant to the notice received in the contempt case that the order was passed, but the respondents had passed order even before becoming aware of the contempt case. 3. Even assuming that all the contentions raised by the respondents can be accepted as true, the respondents had a duty to 2 seek further time from this Court, if further time was actually necessary, within the period stipulated in the judgment, which admittedly has not been done. As a result the petitioner was driven to this Court with this contempt case. For that I am of opinion that nominal costs should be paid by respondents to the petitioner. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- as costs to the petitioner, while closing the contempt case. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge