IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 586 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT IN WP(C): ---------------------------------------------------- V.D. RAPPAI, S/O DEVASY AGED 71 YEARS VADAKKETHALA HOUSE, MANGAD ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ROJAN CHACKO, S/O P.C.CHACKO AGED 48 YEARS BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENTS: 1ST RESPONDENT: ---------------------------- SUBASH (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SECRETARY, THRIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THRIKKAKARA P.O. BY ADV.SRI.SHANAVAS KHAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- C.O.C. NO. 586 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April , 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is permitted to serve a copy of this Contempt of Court Case on Sri.Shanavas Khan, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Heard both sides. Sri.Shanavas Khan submitted that Annexure A1 judgment does not set any time frame for complying with the direction therein. That, according to the learned counsel, can be the reason as to why the directions have not been complied with so far. On going through Annexure A1 judgment, I find that no time frame has been set for compliance of the directions under that judgment. 3. Sri.Roy Chacko, the learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the decision reported in K.K.Balakrishna Pishrodi v. K.S.E.Board (AIR 1988 Kerala 211), submitted that even in cases where this court has not set any time frame, the COC No.586/2008 2 Administrative Authority to whom the directions are issued is expected to comply with the directions within a reasonable time. Though the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to be without force, I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances which obtain in this case, it is not proper to initiate action against the respondent under the Contempt jurisdiction straight away. I dispose of this Contempt of Court Case directing the respondent to comply with all the directions in Annexure A1 judgment at the earliest and at any rate within one month of receiving a copy of this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk