Kerala High Court
All Kerala Bus Operators Forum vs V.A. Krishnadas on 16 June, 2015
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/27TH JYAISHTA, 1938
Con.Case(C).No. 579 of 2016 (S) IN WP(C).18048/2015
-----------------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18048/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 16-06-2015
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIOENRS:
-------------------------
1. ALL KERALA BUS OPERATORS FORUM
KUNNAMKULAM UNIT,
BUNK NO.5, BUS STAND, KUNNAMKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY ABDUL AZIZ
S/O ABOOBAKER, AGED 46 YEARS.
2. M.S. SANGEETH, S/O, SOMAN, AGED 36 YEARS
MANACKALATH HOUSE, P.O., MUNDOOR.
3. JANESH P.P., S/O PRATHAPAN, AGED 40 YEARS
PULICKAL HOUSE, NAMBAZHAKKAD P.O.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENT(S)/1ST RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION:
--------------------------------------------------
V.A. KRISHNADAS
FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITONER,
C.I.OF POLCIE, KUNNUMKULAM , PIN 680 503.
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.K. SHERIN
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No. 579 of 2016 (S) IN WP(C).18048/2015
----------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 6.2.15
ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 9.6.15
ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)
NO.18048/15 DATED 16.6.15
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A TO JUDGE
SB
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
=====================
Contempt of Court Case No.579 of 2016 - S
=================================
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The contempt of court case has been filed on the ground that the Circle Inspector of Police has not considered Exts.P3 and P5. The prayer made in the writ petition was for change of timings and the anomaly accorded in settling the timings for two stage carriages. In fact the petitioner ought to have approached the Regional Transport Authority and not before the Circle Inspector of Police.
2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the Circle Inspector is unable to consider the aforesiad applications, for the simple reason that statute does not confer him such powers. This Court cannot confer powers on officers when the Statute specifically authorises another on the aspect. The 2 Contempt of Court Case No.579 of 2016 - S judgment obtained by the petitioner would be of no consequence. The petitioner would be entitled to take appropriate remedies.
The contempt of court case would stand closed.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/17/06/2016 // true copy // P.A to Judge.