IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 533 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ (O.P.No. 21557/2000) PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SIVARAMA PILLAI, PONMALIL HOUSE, KUTTAMPEROOR P.O., MANNAR, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. C.V.GEORGE, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.MR.JOSEPH VARKEY, DY.DIRECTOR (IN CHARGE)/JOINT DIRECTOR, EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY, KOCHI-682 011. 2. RAJEEV KUMAR, AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER DIRECTOR (IMSPE & Q/C), EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL OF INDIA, 3RD FLOOR, NDYMCA CULTURAL CENTRE BUILDING,1, JAI SINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== Contempt Case (C).No. 533 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T This contempt case is filed by the petitioner complaining of non- compliance with Annexure A1 judgment, which was passed as early as on 23.9.2005. More than five years have passed by after the judgment. I passed an order on 3.11.2010 as follows; “Learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that the respondents are taking steps to give the benefits of Annexure A1 judgment to the petitioner. Learned Assistant Solicitor General seeks three weeks' time. In any event, Annexure A1 judgment is dated 23.9.2005. Five years are too long period for implementing a judgment. Only because the learned Assistant Solicitor General assures this Court that the judgment would be complied with within three weeks, I adjourn this case by three weeks. Post on 29.11.2010. If Annexure A1 judgment is not fully complied with by then, the respondents shall appear in person on that day.” The same itself was passed after issuing notice on 19.6.2009. Today, the learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that orders have been complied with. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been unreasonably harassed by the respondents for getting his due benefits, right for which has been upheld by this Court. It is also pointed out that an appeal and a review petition filed by the respondents in the writ petition were also dismissed. In the above circumstances, while closing the contempt case, I am inclined to award costs to the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents shall personally c.c.c.533/09 2 pay costs of ` 5,000/- to the petitioner, within one month. The same shall not be debited to the exchequer and shall be recovered from the respondents personally. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge