IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 693 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------------- (IN JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 7224/05 DT. 25/5/2006) PETITIONER : ------------------- K.H.UMMER, S/O.HAMSA, 44 YEARS KURIKKAPEEDIKA HOUSE, CHAZHOOR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- R.JAYAPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER) SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY THRISSUR-3. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cont.Case(C).No.693 of 2008-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008. JUDGMENT Annexure-A judgment dated 25-5-2006 was placed before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority on 12-6-2006, going by Annexure-F, which fact is not disputed by the petitioner. In terms of Annexure-A, necessary action ought to have been taken within two months. If the petitioner was aggrieved by non-compliance of Annexure-A judgment and has a case that there is wilful neglect or disobedience in carrying out the directions contained in the said judgment, the application to invoke the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act ought to have been filed within the time prescribed under that statute. This case is filed only on 22-5-2008. The same is, therefore, clearly barred by time. COC.693/2008 -: 2 :- This may not, however, preclude the petitioner from challenging the decision of the RTA or the Secretary, RTA about which he appears to be really aggrieved. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge such decisions before the competent authority in accordance with law, this case is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/260508