In a contempt case, the Court directed the respondent Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, to complete the vehicle replacement exercise and issue orders within 15 days, deeming directions peremptory.
Respondent to complete exercise and issue orders within 15 days; further extensions deprecated.
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
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 20TH MAGHA, 1939
Con.Case(C).No. 1925 of 2017
JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16681/2017 DATED 19-05-2017.
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
SHAMSUDHEEN A.I, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, AMBALATH VEETTIL, PAVARATTY, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.RANJIT BABU SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
MR.AJITH KUMAR A.P, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, PIN - 678 002.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
Con.Case(C).No. 1925 of 2017
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE 1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.5.2017 IN WPC.NO.16681/2017.
ANNEXURE 2 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF ANNEXURE 1 JUDGMENT EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF THE SAME.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
mbr/
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
Cont.Case (Civil) No.1925 of 2017 in
W.P.(C) No.16681 of 2017
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner complains in this contempt of court case that the directions contained in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.16597 of 2017 dated 19.5.2017 have not been complied with by the respondent.
Cont.Case (Civil) No.1925 of 2017
-2-
or refusal on the part of the respondent in complying with the directions and further says that the steps have been taken to issue final orders. He pleads that the respondent may be given two weeks' time from today so as to complete the process and issue appropriate orders. In explication of the delay, the learned Senior Government Pleader says that the delay was occasioned because the petitioner had not produced certain documents. Though I cannot accede to the submission at all because the respondent has the power to even reject the application if the petitioner was at fault, I deem it appropriate to grant time as requested as a last opportunity, so that the directions of this Court can be complied with by the respondent in its letter and spirit.
Cont.Case (Civil) No.1925 of 2017
-3-
extension of time which will be strongly deprecated.
I close this contempt of court case with the above directions, however, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek rehearing of the case, if no orders are issued by the respondent within the time granted herein. The respondent, in such event, is hereby cautioned that violation of these directions will be seen seriously and he will be required to explain such laches, if any, by appearing before this Court personally.
Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
Scl/15.12.2017
1 issue framed by the court
whether the respondent committed contempt by failing to comply with directions in W.P.(C) No.16681/2017 to process a vehicle replacement application.
Shamsudheen A.I
Ajith Kumar A.P
Devan Ramachandrnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
