IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 887 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7395/2010 DTD. 12/03/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.K.ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.BIRIYAKUTTY, AGED 44 YEARS, THIRUNAVAYA KALATHIL HOUSE, MANGALAM P.O., PIN-676 561, (VIA) THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN, SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- MUHAMMED NAJEEB, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, (NOW HOLDING CHARGE OF SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MANGALAM PO, MALAPPURAM), MALAPPURAM-676 505. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SUNIL KUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ Cont. Case No: 887 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd September, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this petition for initiating action in contempt against the respondent for non-compliance with the directions contained in the judgment dated 12/3/2010. As per the said judgment, the respondent has been directed to settle the timings of the petitioner and to issue the regular permit that is already granted to him in respect of vehicle bearing registration No: KL-13H-7189 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 2. The petitioner was originally conducting services with another vehicle bearing registration No: KL 11P 2220. The said vehicle has been subsequently replaced with his present vehicle. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that as per an interim order dated 21/1/2010 in W.P(C) 1628/2010, this Court has interdicted the said authority from holding any timing conference in respect of stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No: KL-11 P 2220, until further orders. Since the respondent has been directed to await further orders from this Court before Cont. Case No: 887/2010 2 holding a timing conference in respect of the petitioner's earlier vehicle, the respondent has been awaiting such orders. 3. Though the petitioner has mentioned in his writ petition as well as in this petition about the pendency of the writ petition referred to above, his specific averment was that there were no interim orders in the said case. Since it is pointed out that the said statement of the petitioner is factually incorrect, it is up to the petitioner to seek for and obtain a clarification of the order in WP(C) 1628/2010 to get the same vacated. Since an interim order of this Court is in force in another writ petition relating to the same matter, there are no grounds to presume that the respondent is guilty of contempt. If the directions of this Court are not complied with even after vacating or modifying the interim order referred to above, the petitioner can move afresh. With the above liberty this contempt case is closed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj Cont. Case No: 887/2010 3