IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 162 of 2009(S) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18937/2008 Dated 25/08/2008 .................... PETITIONER : ------------------------ K.GOPAKUMAR, S/O.KAMAPALAN, AGED 53 YEARS, "GEETHAM", THOTTAKKADU P.O. KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT IN WPC -------------------------------------------------------------- SHRI.JOHN VARGHESE.K., (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL) AT ATTINGAL. BY SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- C.O.C No. 162 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT By judgment in WP(C) No.18937/2008, it was directed that the first respondent herein shall place Exhibit P5 representation mentioned in paragraph 3 of the judgment, for the consideration of the RTA and that the RTA shall consider the grievances raised. This petition has been filed complaining that as against above direction the respondent has considered the matter himself. 2. Learned Government pleader submits that the respondent himself settled the timings of the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in Exhibit P5 representation mentioned above, the main allegation is against unauthorised operation of the 3rd respondent and it is a matter that the RTA to consider as directed in the judgment. 3. Admittedly, the aforesaid grievance raised by the petitioner in Exhibit P5 has not been placed before the RTA as directed in the judgment. In view of the above, it is directed that the respondent shall place Exhibit P5 before the RTA for C.O.C No. 162/2009 2 consideration in the next meeting itself. Therefore, this COC is closed with the above direction and leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the matter, in the event, the direction is not complied with. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm