Vineesh vs P.R.Renjan on 20 October, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con.Case(C).No. 1044 of 2009(S)


1. VINEESH, AGED 34, S/O.SUKUMARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. P.R.RENJAN,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :20/10/2009

 O R D E R
                  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