Muhammed Nazer v. K.G.Raju

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/7TH MAGHA, 1936 Con.Case(C).No. 1498 of 2013 (S) IN WP(C).6392/2011 ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6392/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 12-03-2013 PETITIONER/23RD PETITIONER:

---------------------------------------------- MUHAMMAD NAZER.T.K., AGED 43, S/O.ALI, THAIKKATTIL HOUSE, MUNDERI, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD-673121.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.THOMAS CHAZHUKKARAN SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.MIZVER RESPONDENTS/1ST RESPONDENT-REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. K.G.RAJU, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CHAIRMAN, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KALPETTA NORTH, WAYANAD-673122.

2. V.SURESH KUMAR, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, (REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KALPETTA NORTH, WAYANAD-673 122), SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KALPETTA NORTH, WAYANAD.

3. K.K.BALACHANDRAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, (POLICE CHIEF, WYANAD DISTRICT), MEMBER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KALPETTA NORTH, WAYANAD-673122.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.R. RAJESH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CO(C) NO. 1498/2013 APPENDIX ANNEXURE I :

PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 6392/2011 DATED 12.03.2013.

ANNEXURE II :

PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY BEARING NO. C2/5845/2013 DATED 15.11.2013 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ANNEXURE III :

PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 02.12.2013 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 02.12.2013.

/TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE.

V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- CONTEMPT CASE (C) NO. 1498 OF 2013 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2015

JUDGMENT

The directions in the judgment have since been complied with.

The Contempt Case is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the consequential order passed. V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd