IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 749 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.12608/2009 Dated 28/04/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- K.P.MANIKANDAN, S/O. KUMARAN, KINATEERIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA KOOTAYIL MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ PAFREED, AGED NOT KNOWN FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------- Contempt of Court Case No. 749 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The contemnor is present in person before this Court, pursuant to the orders already issued. The sequence of events has been explained in the affidavit filed in the matter. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent produced a copy of the proceedings of the Secretary, RTA, Malappuram passed on 31.12.2009, whereby the direction to implement the order passed by the STAT by granting 'Regular Permit' to the petitioner is stated as complied with. However, it is stated in the last para of the said order that, by virtue of the enhancement of the stipulated fees from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.5,200/-, the petitioner has to remit the balance fees Rs.200/-; upon which the petitioner can have the regular permit to operate the vehicle in the route, on the strength of the settled timings as given in the said order. C.O.C No. 749 of 2009 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 'timing' had already been settled, which could not have been varied by the contemnor or any other authority; and since the present order shows some variation in the timings, it is not correct or sustainable. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the timings fixed, as given in the order dated 31.12.2009, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same by filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. Having reported compliance as above, though much belatedly, further proceedings are not intended to be pursued. Recording the regrets expressed by the contemnor all further proceedings are dropped. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P. A to Judge ab