IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 716 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6304/2010 Dated 02/03/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- BALACHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.VASU PILLAI, RESIDING AT MOHANALAYAM, ASHTAMUDI P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- R.JAYAPRASAD, AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM (IN CHARGE). BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S. MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ Cont. Case NO: 716 OF 2010 S ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this contempt case complaining that the respondent has not complied with the direction contained in the judgment of this Court dated 2/3/2010 in W.P(C) No: 6304/2010. In the said judgment, this Court has issued the following direction:- “In the circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider Ext.P7 request submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 2. Pursuant to the above direction the request of the petitioner was considered and as per proceedings dated19/4/2010, evidenced herein by Annexure B, the respondent has found that there are no change of circumstances to resettle the existing timings and that such an exercise would be a mere waste of time. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the authority has not considered his request and has therefore not complied with the direction of this Court. COC 716/2010 2 4. As already noted above, the direction issued by this Court was to consider the request of the petitioner in Annexure B proceedings. The authority has considered the request and has found that there are no change of circumstances to resettle the existing timings. Therefore, the authority has substantially complied with the direction in Annexure A1 judgment. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the findings in Annexure B proceedings, the petitioner has the right to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. 5. Without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to challenge Annexure B in appropriate proceedings, this contempt of court case is dismissed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj COC 716/2010 3