IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 924 of 2010(S) ---------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7071/2010 DATED 05/03/2010 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------------- SHEEJA THOMAS, THAKADIYELPARAMBIL, CHANANIKAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. SMT.MINI ANTONY, W/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE CHAIRMAN, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CUM DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. SRI.A.V. POULOSE, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CUM REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... CONT.CASE.No.924 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 JUDGMENT This petition is filed seeking initiation of action in contempt against the respondents for non compliance with the directions contained in the judgment of this court dated 5.3.2010 in WP(C) No.6071 of 2010. An affidavit has been filed by the second respondent to the effect that the direction of this court has already been complied with, by the issue of order dated 17.5.2010, rejecting the application for replacement and variation of permit submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Senior Government Pleader submits that the direction of this court has already been complied with and that the action in contempt is not maintainable. 2. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner pointing out that though the order in purported compliance with the judgment of this court is stated to have been passed on 17.5.2010, the same has been communicated to her only on 29.7.2010. It is also pointed out that though the direction of this court was to the first respondent, RTA, the Coc 924/2010 2 order dated 17.5.2010 has been passed by the Secretary thereof. It is further contended that the Secretary of RTA has no power to reject a permit and can only grant the same. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that the power of the RTA has been delegated to the Secretary and therefore the order is perfectly in order. 3. Since an order has been passed on the application for replacement and variation of the regular permit submitted by the petitioner, in compliance with the direction of this court, no further proceedings are necessary to be initiated in this petition. If the order has been passed by an authority that does not have the power to do so, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the said order in appropriate proceedings. Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to do so, this contempt petition is closed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk