IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 63 of 2008(S) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20373/2007 Dated 24/07/2007 .................... PETITIONER : WRIT PETITIONER: --------------------------------- VARGHESE.C.L, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LONAPPAN, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, THANISSERY P.O., MANAPPADY. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. DR.M.BEENA IAS, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER) DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-3. 2. T.CHANDRAN IPS, AGED 58 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER) DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE, THRISSUR-3) 3. M.A.ROSAMMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER) DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE, THRISSUR-3) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== C.C.C.No.No.63 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains of non-compliance of Annexure-A judgment, in this contempt case. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which, inter alia, it is stated that the RTA has not received any application dated 26.6.2007 referred to in W.P (C).No.20373/2007 and all what the petitioner had produced is the copy of the judgment in that writ petition along with a covering letter requesting to consider the application avoiding the overlapping portion, on 4.8.2007. The petitioner would dispute this, stating that he has received Annexure E receipt for filing the application. The learned Government Pleader submits that Annexure E is only in respect of the covering letter and judgment, and not in respect of any application. According to the petitioner, Annexure F is the application submitted by him, which is stated to be not received by the respondents. The learned Government Pleader further contends that Annexure F is not in proper form for submitting application. The learned Government Pleader c.c.c.63/2008 2 submits that if the petitioner files an application in proper form, it would be considered in accordance with the judgment. Accordingly, this contempt case is closed recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader. Needless to say, if the petitioner submits application in proper form, the same would be considered by the respondents in accordance with Annexure A judgment within one month from the date of receipt of application. The contempt case is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge