IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 442 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29420/2007 Dated 09/10/2007 .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN WPC NO.29420/07: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAJI JOHN T., S/O.ULAHANNAN, AGED 38 YEARS, THEKKUMPURATH HOUSE, PAYYAMPALLY, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS RESERVE DRIVER, KSRTC, MANANTHAVADY. 2. V.C.ABRAHAM, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 43 YEARS, VARAPATTIL HOUSE, KARIAMPADI P.O., MANIVAYAL, WAYANAD DIST. PRESENTLY WORKING AS RESERVE DRIVER, KSRTC, MANANTHAVADY. 3. P.K.MANMADHAN, S/O.K.K.KUTTAPPAN, AGED 41 YEARS, PULLUMALAYIL HOUSE, CHELLAMGODE P.O., VADUVANCHAL, WAYANAD DIST. PRESENTLY WORKING AS RESERVE DRIVER, KSRTC, MANANTHAVADY. 4. V.RAVI, S/O.LAKSHMAN, AGED 40 YEARS, VERALITHODIYIL EACHOME P.O., WAYANAD DIST. PRESENTLY WORKING AS RESERVE DRIVER, KSRTC, MANANTHAVADY. 5. HARIDASAN C.K., S/O.P.P.KUTTIKRISHNA KURUP, KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, NALLOORNAD P.O., MANANTHAVADY VIA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS RESERVE DRIVER, KSRTC, MANANTHAVADY. 6. SHAJI P.V., S/O.VARKEY, AGED 40 YEARS, PULICKAMALIL HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS RESERVE DRIVER, KSRTC, MANANTHAVADY. Kss ..2/- ...2... COC.NO.442/2008 7. SANAL V.D., S/O.DIVAKARAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, BAVALI P.O. PALVELICHAM, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS RESERVE DRIVER, KSRTC, MANANTHAVADY. 8. JAYAN V.S., S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 40 YEARS, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, VELLAMUNDA P.O., MANANTHAVADY VIA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS RESERVE DRIVER, KSRTC, MANANTHAVADY. 9. C.V.JOSE, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 41 YEARS, CHERUPLAVIL HOUSE, EDAVAKA (P.O), KALLODI WAYANAD DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS RESERVE DRIVER, KSRTC, MANANTHAVADY. 10. M.MANOJKUMAR, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 41 YEARS, MYLAKUNNATH HOUSE, PUDUSSERY P.O., MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. PRESENTLY WORKING AS RESERVE DRIVER, KSRTC, MANANTHAVADY. 11. M.K.SANTHOSH, S/O.KESAVAN, MUNDAPPELLIL HOUSE, NAMBIYARKUNNAM P.O., CHEERAL VIA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS RESERVE DRIVER, KSRTC, MANANTHAVADY. 12. SUNILKUMAR T., S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 40 YEARS, PADMALAYAM, VADUVANCHAL, THOMATTUCHAL P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS RESERVE DRIVER, KSRTC, MANANTHAVADY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT: 3RD RESPONDENT IN WPC NO.29420/07: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SHRI.T.P.SEN KUMAR, AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, KSRTC THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.C.(C).NO. 442 OF 2008 IN W.P.C. NO. 29420 OF 2007 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th April, 2008 JUDGMENT By the Judgment in the Writ Petition, which is the subject matter of the Contempt Petition, this Court had directed the third respondent Corporation to consider and take a decision on Ext.P7 representation strictly in accordance with law and it was also directed that it will involve the inevitable need to consult the Public Service Commission. It is the complaint of the petitioners that Annexure A2 decision has been taken, rejecting the representation. Shri M.P. Krishnan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, having regard to the terms of the Judgment, it was obligatory on the part of the third respondent Managing Director to consult the Public Service Commission. This contention is refuted by Shri K. Prabhakaran, learned standing counsel for the KSRTC and he would submit that in a case of rejection, it may not be necessary to consult the CC(C). 442/08 S 2 Public Service Commission and it was not that was intended by this Court. A view has been taken in Annexure A2 involving rejection of the representation without consulting the Public Service Commission. I do not think that a case has been made out to proceed against the respondent in the Contempt of Court Case. However, I make it clear that this will not stand in the way of the petitioners ventilating their grievance against Annexure A2 before the appropriate Forum, if they are so advised. Subject to the above observation, the Contempt of Court Case is dropped. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.