IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 880 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14862/2008 .................... PETITIONER:PETITIONER ----------------- P.K.SABU, S/O KUNJAN, AGED 38 YEARS, PULIYANAPUZHA KIZHATHIRI P.O., RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT :1ST RESPONDENT ------------- P.L. PAPPACHAN, ( AGE AND FATHERS NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI K.V.MANOJKUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C) 880 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 18, 2008 JUDGMENT Annexure A9 order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the Secretary, RTA, Kottayam, re-settling the timings of the petitioner, as directed in the judgment in WP(C) 14862/2008, and describing the same to be in violation of the said judgment, and on that basis, this contempt case is filed. 2. By the aforesaid judgment this Court directed that the timings of the petitioner be re-settled as directed in Annexure A5 judgment of this Court and Annexure A2 order of the STAT. It is seen that by Annexure A9, revision of timings has been effected, but however, learned counsel for the petitioner complains that the same is not in the manner as directed. 3. By the aforesaid judgment of this Court and the order of the STAT, timings in so far as two trips of the Cont. Case (C) 880 of 2008 2 petitioner were required to be revised and a reading of Ext.A9 shows that the revision has been effected. However, it is not to the satisfaction of the petitioner. But that does not, in my view, mean that the respondent is liable to be proceeded against for contempt. 4. In my view, if the petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A9, the appropriate course open to him is to challenge the said order according to law. 5. It is clarified that it will be open to the petitioner to challenge Annexure A9 and that this judgment will not cause any prejudice to his contentions. The contempt case is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-