IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 887 of 2010(S)
1. T.K.ABDUL KAREEM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MUHAMMED NAJEEB,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.HARIHARAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :23/09/2010
O R D E R
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------
Cont. Case No: 887 OF 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd September, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition for initiating action in
contempt against the respondent for non-compliance with the
directions contained in the judgment dated 12/3/2010. As per the
said judgment, the respondent has been directed to settle the
timings of the petitioner and to issue the regular permit that is
already granted to him in respect of vehicle bearing registration No:
KL-13H-7189 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
2. The petitioner was originally conducting services with
another vehicle bearing registration No: KL 11P 2220. The said
vehicle has been subsequently replaced with his present vehicle.
The respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that as per
an interim order dated 21/1/2010 in W.P(C) 1628/2010, this Court
has interdicted the said authority from holding any timing
conference in respect of stage carriage vehicle bearing registration
No: KL-11 P 2220, until further orders. Since the respondent has
been directed to await further orders from this Court before
Cont. Case No: 887/2010 2
holding a timing conference in respect of the petitioner’s earlier
vehicle, the respondent has been awaiting such orders.
3. Though the petitioner has mentioned in his writ petition as
well as in this petition about the pendency of the writ petition
referred to above, his specific averment was that there were no
interim orders in the said case. Since it is pointed out that the said
statement of the petitioner is factually incorrect, it is up to the
petitioner to seek for and obtain a clarification of the order in WP(C)
1628/2010 to get the same vacated. Since an interim order of this
Court is in force in another writ petition relating to the same
matter, there are no grounds to presume that the respondent is
guilty of contempt. If the directions of this Court are not complied
with even after vacating or modifying the interim order referred to
above, the petitioner can move afresh. With the above liberty this
contempt case is closed.
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
jj
Cont. Case No: 887/2010 3