IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1020 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17999/2007 Dated 19/07/2007 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.A.CHACKO,S/O.ABRAHAM,AGED 65, THADATHIL HOUSE,NALLATHANNI ESTATE,MUNNAR.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- NARAYANAN,TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM,IDUKKI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Cont. Case (C) No. 1020 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 13th November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains of non-compliance with my judgment dated 19-7-2007. The only direction in Annexure A judgment was to consider the representation filed by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders thereon within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. That judgment is dated 19-7- 2007. Even when the contempt case was filed, the judgment had not been complied with. But, subsequently, the judgment has been complied with . In view of the long delay, I directed the concerned officer to file an affidavit explaining the delay. He has filed an affidavit giving some reasons being overburdened with extra work. Even if the reason is true, nothing prevented him from seeking extension of time, which also he has not done. Therefore, I am not at all happy with the conduct of the respondent in the matter. However, taking a lenient view, I drop further proceedings, now that the direction has been complied with. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.