This matter has been filed, alleging contumacious act on the part of the respondent in complying with the directions contained in Annexure A1 verdict.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that pendency of the criminal case cannot be a bar for considering the claim for restoration of the licence, which was suspended, as made clear by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment. Order now passed by the respondent vide Annexure A2 dated 06.09.2013 simply says that grievance of the petitioner can be considered, subject to outcome of the criminal case, which according to the petitioner is a contumacious act.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that Annexure A2 is a detailed order referring to the facts and circumstances and as to why the claim to have the licence restored cannot be considered formally. Admittedly, Annexure A2 is an order rejecting the claim, more so, when an observation is made in the penultimate paragraph, Cont. Case No. 1141 of 2014 against W.P.(C) No. 12102 of 2013 : 2 :
that such a claim was rejected by the concerned District Supply Officer. In view of the fact this Court has not adjudicated the merit of the case, it is still open for the petitioner to have the order challenged, by way of other appropriate proceedings.
In the said circumstances, the contempt matter is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to challenge Annexure A2 order.
kmd Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)