Kerala High Court
The Secretary vs Biju James on 5 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
Tuesday, the 5th day of October 2021 / 13th Aswina, 1943
CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 1478 OF 2021(S) IN WP(C) 5808/2021
PETITIONER:
THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR DISTRICT
SC/ST MOTOR TRANSPORT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD.,
R.NO.740, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003.
BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK.
RESPONDENT:
BIJU JAMES, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE P.O.,
THRISSUR -680 003. CONTACT NO.+91-8547639008.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT.
This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
05.10.2021, the court on the same day passed the following:
P.T.O.
EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/12/2020 IN
MVAA NO.151 OF 2020.
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
----------------------------------------------
Cont. Case (C.) No.1478 of 2021
in W.P.(C.) No.5808 of 2021
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 05th day of October, 2021
ORDER
Specific direction of this Court by judgment dated
07.04.2021 was as follows:
"I am inclined to direct the second respondent to give effect
to Ext.P3 judgment. The petitioner shall produce the original
permit thereafter for endorsement on it. Copy of the same
shall be forwarded to the third respondent for uploading
necessary entries in accordance with law. This is occasioned
by virtue of the fact that parivahan platform is not enable (sic)
to accept the application for replacement with a leased vehicle."
The NIC was made a party to make the judgment binding on
them. This Court was conscious of the fact that the software
was not enabled to accept application of a person holding
vehicle on lease. It was in this background the petitioner was
directed to produce the original permit and the second
respondent was directed to endorse on it. Further steps to be
taken by the second respondent was also clarified in the above
order. I feel that the directions are so clear, beyond any
Cont. Case C. No.1478 of 2021
in W.P.C. No.5808 of 2021
ambiguity.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner asserted that in
compliance of the judgment, the petitioner had made
available the permit for endorsement, but it was not
endorsed by the respondent.
3. The affidavit filed by the second respondent shows
that the entire steps taken by him was misdirected and was
beyond the scope of this judgment.
4. Having considered this, I am inclined to direct the
learned Government Pleader to get specific instructions from
the second respondent why he did not endorsed on the
original permit and why the endorsed copy was not forwarded
to the third respondent for uploading and the circumstances
under which the unnecessary steps were taken by the
authority. File a detailed affidavit as last chance.
Post on 12.10.2021.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
JUDGE
SKP/5-10
05-10-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
