IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11912 of 2009(H) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VINOD KUMAR K.C., S/O KUNHI KANARAN, AGED 39 YEARS, KANNATHOTTATHIL, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. T.M. KESAVAN, CHAKKATTAPPARA AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 11912 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed with a prayer to declare that the petitioner is entitled to remit the compensation as per Ext.P1 judgment before the Court below and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Court below to accept the money from the petitioner in view of the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Court in the judgment reported in Girish v. Muthoot Capital Service (2007 (1) KLT 16). With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner I had perused the said decision. It was a case where in an 138 case there was conviction and sentence and a revision was preferred before the revisional Court. Then rightly conceded by the learned counsel that there are no merits in the revision a question arose to the effect since a time is stipulated for payment of fine and when it is tendered after due date there will be difficulty. This Court held that the said W.P.C 11912 OF 2009 -:2:- apprehension appears to be totally unfounded and had laid down the dictum in such cases to be followed. 2. So far as this case is concerned in spite of the order passed by this Court as early as in 2005 till today the petitioner did not go anywhere near the Court and has now come with a prayer to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court to give a mandate to the trial court to accept the amount. The judgment rendered by this Court is binding on all the subordinate Courts and when there is apprehension in the mind of the petitioner he is at liberty to move that Court with a petition citing the decision which he relies upon and that Court is bound to follow the principles laid down in that decision. I am not going into any further details. The petitioner may move the Court if he chooses to do so and the trial court shall consider the application in the light of the enunciated principles of law laid down by this Court as well as of the Apex Court. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-