IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1044 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20263/2009 Dated 20/07/2009) PETITIONER/ PETITIONER IN THE WPC ------------------------------------ VINEESH, AGED 34, S/O.SUKUMARAN, THANIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KURICHIKARA, PONGANAMKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT IN THE WPC ------------------------------------ P.R.RENJAN, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, (TAXATION OFFICER), REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, TRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ............................................................................... CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE NO. 1044 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 20th October, 2009 J U D G M E N T As per the judgment dated 20.07.2009 in the Writ Petition, recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner for realisation of a sum of Rs. 64,440/- plus additional tax and expenses due under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1976 in respect of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL.38/2544 were intercepted, subject to the condition that the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs. Twenty thousand within one month; simultaneously making it clear that the balance amount was to be cleared by way of three equal monthly installments, the first of which on or before the 10th September, 2009, to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 10th of the succeeding months, with default clause. On remittance of the first installment, the vehicle of the petitioner was directed to be released to the petitioner; also observing that CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE NO. 1044 OF 2009 2 the vehicle was not to be put on the road unless and until the entire tax liability was cleared. 2. This Contempt of Court Case has been filed by the petitioner stating that, despite the satisfaction of the first installment, the vehicle has not been released to the petitioner so far. On issuance of notice after dispensing with the personal appearance of the contemnor, the respondent has filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner was yet to comply with the direction given by this Court, in so far as he did not choose to effect the first installment due within the specified time, i.e. on or before 10.09.2009. It is also stated therein that the petitioner's contention as to the payment of a sum of Rs.20000/- though is correct, the specific direction given by this Court was to release the vehicle on remittance of the ' first installment of the balance amount', which was to be cleared on or before 10.09.2009. 3. On going through the judgment, there is no room for any obscurity at all. The direction to remit a sum of Rs.20000/- was given while intercepting with the coercive steps and release CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE NO. 1044 OF 2009 3 of the vehicle was ordered, on remittance of the first installment towards the balance liability to be satisfied by the petitioner . In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any disobedience or contumacious act on the part of the respondent and no interference is called for. Therefore, the Contempt Case is dismissed accordingly. However, it appears that the petitioner could not properly conceive the meaning of the direction given by this Court while passing the judgment and in the said circumstances, the direction contained in the said judgment will continue to operate and the vehicle will be released to the petitioner, if the direction is complied within a further period of two weeks from today, effecting the installments, as ordered. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk