Rasheed K vs Joshy.K
2021 Latest Caselaw 13150 Ker

Con.Case(C) No.908/2021                       1/4

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                           PRESENT
                           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
               WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1943
             CONTEMPT CASE(CIVIL) NO. 908 OF 2021(S) IN WP(C) 3966/2021


PETITIONER/PETITIONER

           RASHEED K,S/O AHAMMEDKUTTY,AGED 44 YEARS,KUZHIKKANDATHIL
           HOUSE,MUNDUMUZHI P.O,VAZHAKKAD,MALAPPURAM-673640
           BY ADVOCATE SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

           JOSHY.K,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,MALAPPURAM,CIVIL STATION
           ROAD,UPHILL,MALAPPURAM-676505


          This Contempt of Court Case(Civil) having come up for orders on
          23.06.2021, the court on the same day passed the following:
 Con.Case(C) No.908/2021                  2/4




          ANNEXURE A:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
          WP(C) NO.3966 OF 2021 DATED 01.03.2021
 Con.Case(C) No.908/2021                       3/4




                                     SUNIL THOMAS, J.
                          -------------------------------------------
                              Con. Case (C) No. 908 of 2021
                          -------------------------------------------
                          Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2021

                                          ORDER

The petitioner has approached this court lamenting that

order of this court in Annexure-A has not been complied with.

When the matter was taken up today, the learned Senior

Government Pleader on the basis of a report from the RTA

stated that though notice was given to both sides to appear on

27.04.2021, both sides did not appear. Thereafter, meeting

could not be convened immediately because of the triple

lockdown. Now, the matter is posted to 21.07.2021 for hearing

both sides.

2. This report is objected by the learned Counsel for

the petitioner contending that, infact petitioner had appeared

before the authority and a report was given by the AMVI, that

there was some clash of timings. Objector did not appear.

According to him, the timing offered by the petitioner herein is Con.Case(C) No.908/2021 4/4

subsequent to the timing of the objector / permit holder and

hence, there is no scope for any dispute.

3. Having considered this and also the submission of

the learned Counsel for the petitioner that infact his client has

appeared before the authority and conveyed this fact, I am

inclined to direct the authority to hear the petitioner after

giving notice to all concerned, specifically on 08.07.2021 at

10.30 am, either personally or online. After considering both

sides, the order shall be implemented as directed. If the

objectors does not appear, the authority will be free to take

proper decision on the basis of the available materials. If for

any unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the

authority alone, meeting cannot be convened on that specified

day, it shall be postponed to another date within a period of

one week thereafter and final decisions shall be taken.

For reporting compliance, post on 12.07.2021.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE SKP/23-6

23-06-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar