This contempt petition alleged non-compliance with the High Court's direction to issue a permit. The Court examined the respondent's affidavit and found that changes in circumstances and petitioner's lack of cooperation led to the delays. No willful contempt was made out, and the case was closed.
Contempt case closed without proceeding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/6TH PHALGUNA, 1937
Con.Case(C).No. 1135 of 2015 (S) IN WP(C).34693/2014 -----------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 34693/2014 DATED 19-12-2014
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER :-
SHIJIL K.K., AGED 34 YEARS S/O.JAYAPRAKASAN, LAKSHMI COTTAGE, P.O MUNDAYAD KANNUR DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT :-
C.J.PAULSON (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER CUM SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR-670 002
BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
jvt
ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
Cont. Case (C) No.1135 of 2015
Dated this the 25th day of February 2016
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J.
This contempt case has been filed alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court as per judgment dated 19.12.2014. This matter had been referred to this Court by the learned Single Judge by order dated 13.10.2015 observing that prima facie it is seen that there is willful contempt on the part of the respondent/contemnor. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court.
“The applicant approached this Hon'ble Court and vide judgment in W.P.(C) No.34643/2014 dated 19.12.2014, this Hon'ble Court directed to issue the granted permit after conducting timing conference with proposed timings within two weeks. Again timing conference was
Cont. Case (C) No.1135 of 2015
-: 2 :-
conducted as per the proposed timing suggested by the enquiry officer on 05.01.2015. The representative of the applicant submitted that the application for fresh regular permit was submitted by the applicant as LSOS and the same was granted in the RTA as ordinary service. So applicant is not interested to conduct timing as ordinary service. The applicant submitted that he shall modify the application and requested to adjourn the timing conference. Hence the timing conference was adjourned on 05.01.2015.”
In the additional affidavit, it is further stated that as per order dated 5.10.2015, the RTA had issued a set of timings to the petitioner. It is stated that thereafter, changes had been effected as per order dated 16.11.2015, which is produced as Ext.R1(b).
Cont. Case (C) No.1135 of 2015
-: 3 :-
submitted that he will submit a modified application. However, it is stated that the said modified application was not submitted. Thereafter, the authority issued a direction to the petitioner to place the modified application before the next RTA meeting, but, in response to the said letter, the petitioner sent a reply stating that he is not ready to modify the application. It is therefore, clear that there was some change in circumstance and on account of the subsequent revision of timings granted by the respondent authority, they were not in a position to issue set of timings as proposed by the petitioner. That apart, it is clear from the factual situation that the petitioner was operating in the route on a temporary permit and therefore, we do not find that any willful contempt has been made out as alleged by the petitioner.
Hence, we do not find any reason to proceed with the contempt case and accordingly, the same is closed.
Sd/ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Jvt/26.2.2016.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is guilty of willful contempt for failing to comply with the direction to issue a regular permit.
Whether the delay in compliance was due to a change in circumstances rather than willful defiance.
Shijil K.K.
C.J. Paulson
Ashok Bhushan
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
