IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 14748 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.V. DANIEL, KURISINKAL HOUSE, PALLITHODE,CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM. 2. SMT. RIBOLY ANTONY, KURISINKAL HOUSE, CHELLANAM, KOCHI-8. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the proceedings dated 27.11.2007. Ext.P2. True copy of the judgment dated 28.3.2008 in WP(c).No.6865/2008 Ext.P3. True copy of the Notification dated 7.4.2008 // true copy// P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.14748/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition, petitioner was granted a regular permit by Ext.P1. Complaining of delay in the settlement of timings in pursuance to Ext.P1 he had filed a writ petition as WP(c).No.6865/2008. That case was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment recording the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader that the process pursuant to Ext.P1 will be completed within 2 months from 28.3.2008, the date of judgment. 2. Petitioner now complains that in so far as the subsequent grantee is concerned, his time was scheduled to be settled by Ext.P3 and that as far as he is concerned there has not been any progress in the matter. Thus essentially the grievance is regarding the non-compliance of Ext.P2 WP(c).No.14748/08 2 judgment rendered by this court. 3. If as a matter of fact, Ext.P2 was complied with, he would not have had a complaint that the timing in respect of the subsequent grantee is settled earlier than him. In my view, since the complaint is against the violation of Ext.P2, the proper remedy available to the petitioner is to invoke the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, rather than filing a second writ petition. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.14748/08 3