IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1222 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29990/2008 Dated 21/10/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- ANDHRA PRADESH TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION CENTRE,PLOT NO.7,2ND FLOOR,REGAL HOUSE,MOTILAL NEHRU NAGAR,BEGUMPET,HYDERABAD- 500 016,ANDHRA PRADESH,REP.BY ITS COUNSELLOR (TECHNOLOGY) S.JYOTI KUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): COUNTERNNORS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------- 1. MINI ANTONY,W/O.ANTONY, AGED 45 YEARS,PRESENTLY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM,FORMER SECRETARY OF CORPORATION OF COCHIN,RESIDING AT COLLECTOR'S BUNGALOW, DEVALOKAM,KOTTAYAM. 2. P.G.THOMAS,S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SECRETARY OF CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 011. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR R2 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== Contempt Case (C).No.1222 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains of non-compliance with my judgment dated 21.10.2008 in W.P.(C).No.29990/2008. By that judgment, I directed the Secretary of the Corporation to place the letters submitted by the petitioner regarding payment to be made by the Corporation to the petitioner before the Council of the Corporation for appropriate decision in its next meeting. There was a further direction to the Council to take a decision thereon in the next meeting and to communicate the same to the petitioner. The petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner has not been communicated with any decision in that regard. Affidavit and additional affidavit have been filed by the 2nd respondent. They now submit that although belatedly, the matter was placed before the Council and the Council had taken a decision in the matter. But they admit that the decision was not communicated to the petitioner on the belief that the petitioner was aware of that decision. They have now filed additional affidavit stating that a copy of the resolution of the Council was forwarded to the petitioner also and, therefore, the direction in the judgment has been fully complied with. 2. It is true that as of now the orders have been complied with. But it is an undisputed fact that that was belated compliance. 2 First of all the decision was taken belatedly without obtaining extension of time from this Court. Secondly, the Corporation chose to forward a copy of the resolution adopted by them to the petitioner only when this Court enquired as to why the decision was not communicated to the petitioner. As such, I am not at all happy with the conduct of the respondents in the matter. However, taking a lenient view, I close this contempt case. But I am of opinion that the respondents should pay a token cost to the petitioner for having made the petitioner to file this contempt case, by the inaction of the respondents. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to pay a token cost of Rs.2,500/- to the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge