IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1253 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.1149/2006 Dated 13/01/2006 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/PETITIONER NO.1,2 AND 4. --------------------------------------------------- 1. K.MUHAMMED ABDUL MAJEED, S/O ABDULLA, AGED 52 YEARS, MECHANIC KERALA STATE ROAD TRASPORT CORPORATION, MALAPPURAM DEPOT, RESIDING AT KOTHALATHIL HOUSE, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM. 2. K.CHANDRAN, S/O VELUNNI, AGED 53 YEARS, GUARD GRADE I, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MALAPPURAM DEPOT, RESIDING AT KUNNATH HOUSE CHEEKODE P.O., ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 3. V.DAMODARAN, S/O CHIZHI, AGED 58 YEARS, MECHANIC (RETIRED), KERALA STATE ROAD TRASPORT CORPORATION, MALAPPURAM DEPT, RESIDING AT VELUTHEDATHODY HOUSE CHEMMANKADAVU, KUNNATHUPARA, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.P.NANDAKUMAR SRI.V.A.AJAI KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 &2: --------------------------------------------- 1. T.P. SENKUMAR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Con.Case(C).No. 1253 of 2008 2. K.K. BALAKRISHNAN, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, ASSISTANT TRASPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRASPORT CORPORATION, MALAPPURAM DEPOT, MALAPPURAM. SRI. K. PRABHAKARAN -SC THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Contempt Case (C)No.1253 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT On 20.10.2008, I passed the following order in this Contempt Case: “The learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.R.T.C submits that although certain amounts have been recovered from the petitioners erroneously, the same has been recredited on 22/9/2008 and 19/9/2008 in respect of the 1 st two petitioners. As far as the 3 rd petitioner is concerned, no amount has been recovered as alleged. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to verify”. Now the petitioners submit that the statement made by the Standing Counsel is correct. However, the petitioners submit that further direction in Annexure-A judgment, to dispose of Exts.P6 to P10, has not been complied with. I do not think that the petitioners can have any grievance in respect of the same, since the proposed deduction is directed to be kept in abeyance until decision is taken on Exts.P6 to P10. If C.O.C.No.1253/08 2 the decision is not taken on Exts.P6 to P10, the respondents cannot carry out the proposed deduction. Accordingly, with the above observation, this Contempt Case is closed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd