IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2010 / 26TH ASWINA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1229 of 2010(S) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36530/2009 Dated 14/06/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS IN THE WPC. ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJAY JOSEPH, EDAMATTOM, KAMVANCHAL, AGE 37, S/O. JOSEPG,KANNUR-670 571. 2. JOSE JAMES, PUTHENPARA, VAYATTU PARAMBA, AGE 36, S/O. JAMES, KANNUR-670 582. BY ADVS. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.M.A.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ SRI. R.S.GUJRAL, IAS, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ S.SIRI JAGAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C) NO. 1229 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner complains of non compliance with the directions in Annexure VII judgment. The direction reads therein thus:- “In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and take a final decision in the matter and communicate the same to the petitioner and others concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. While doing so, the 1st respondent shall consider the matter in accordance with Ext.P11 instructions issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, to various Chief Secretaries of the State Governments and Chief Engineers of the States dealing with national highways and centrally sponsored schemes.” Admittedly, Annexure VIII order has been passed pursuant to the said direction. The petitioner's contention is that Annexure VIII order is not in compliance with Annexure VII judgment, in so far as the National Highway Authority has recommended the case of the petitioner. Whether the National Highway Authority has recommended the case of the petitioner or not, the Government of India is not bound to accept the recommendation and they can pass an independent order, which has been done in this case. If Cont. Case (C) NO. 1229 OF 2010 2 that order is wrong, according to the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to challenge Annexure VIII appropriately. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Annexure VIII order appropriately, this Contempt Case is closed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. mns