IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 842 of 2010(S) ------------------------------------------------ (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/03/2010 IN WP(C) NO.3219/2010) ......... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NJEKKADU RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, REG.NO.T 247/2005.,VADASSERIKKONAM P.O., VARKKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.N.GOPINATHAN,AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.NEELAKANDAN. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.RAJA, SRI.R.FANJITH. RESPONDENT(S):3RD RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ P.R.RANJAN,AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER(R.T.O),ATTINGAL, THIRUVANATHAPURAM DIST. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Con.Case No.842 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th July, 2011 JUDGMENT An affidavit has been filed by the respondent after this case was re-opened as per order dated 9.2.2011. The respondent has described in detail the action taken to comply with the directions of this Court in paragraphs 4 and 5 of his affidavit. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken serious objections to the affidavit of the respondent pointing out that no details of the steps taken by the respondent are available, with supporting evidence to prove that the order of this Court has been complied with. It is pointed out that no single staff was employed to monitor the situation pursuant to the directions of this Court and that no surprise checks were conducted as sworn to in the affidavit. 3. It is not possible for this Court to find out whether the situation has been monitored and whether surprise checks have been conducted by the respondent as sworn to by him. However, there is absolutely no material Con.Case 842/2010 2 or evidence to justify a conclusion that the sworn statement of the respondent is false. On the contrary, the presumption is that official acts are done properly. The affidavit of the officer can be disbelieved only when other clinching evidence are available to disprove the sworn statement. No such materials are available in this case. Therefore, I accept the sworn statement of the respondent in the affidavit filed in this case. 4. No further action is called for in this Contempt Case. The same is therefore closed. SD/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE css/ Con.Case 842/2010 3 Con.Case 842/2010 4 K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Contempt Case No.842 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th September 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners have filed this case contending that the directions of this Court are flouted by the respondent. The respondent has filed an affidavit stating that all steps have been taken to effectively implement the directions of this Court as well as Lok Ayukta. Though the petitioners have filed a reply affidavit refuting the contentions of the respondent in his affidavit, there is nothing on record to show that the directions of this Court are being flouted as alleged. The Regional Transport Officer, a responsible officer has sworn to an affidavit stating that the directions of this Court have been complied with. In the absence of any evidence to show that the assertions are incorrect, I do not find any reason to disbelieve them or to initiate any Con.Case 842/2010 5 action in this matter. Accordingly, this COC is closed. The petitioners are free to seek for reopening their petition, if they are able to obtain any evidence in support of their contentions. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/