IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 995 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.22122/2009 Dated 06/08/2009 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- S.HARIHARAN, S/O.SARANGADHARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO.13218, CHERTHALA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.A.327, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 524, RESIDING AT VELIYIL, KALAVANKODAM, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2: -------------------------------------- SHRI.O.J.SHIBU, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE RETURNING OFFICER/INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), CHERTHALA. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.T.B. HOOD THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2010, ALONG WITH COC NO. 980 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) Nos. 995 and 980 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. These Contempt petitions arise out of judgment dated 06.08.09 in W.P.(C) No.22122 of 2009 and judgment dated 5.8.09 in W.P.(C) No.22203 of 2009 respectively. 2. The main grievance projected in the Contempt petition No.995 of 2009 is that the Returning Officer has paid only scant regards to the directions given by this Court, that the election process was permitted to be videographed as requested by the petitioner. 3. On going through the judgment what we find is that, there was no direction permitting the petitioner to have the process videographed. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: “13. In several cases of this nature, considering identical apprehensions, this Court has granted these reliefs. Therefore, in this writ petition also, the Returning Officer is directed to allow videography of the events at the polling stations, at the cost of the petitioner, and retain the original video/CD with him, and to give a copy thereof to the CCC Nos. 995 & 998 of 2009 -:2:- petitioner. This obviously shall be under the directions of the Returning Officer.” The sum and substance of the direction given was to the Returning Officer to allow videogrphy of the events at the polling stations at the cost of the petitioner and to retain the original video/CD with him and to give a copy to the petitioner. 4. In response to the averments raised in the Contempt petition, the respondent/contemnor has filed an affidavit stating that there was absolutely no lapse or negligence on the part of the respondent and that the direction given by this Court has been fully complied with. It is stated that the petitioner submitted Annexure R1(a) request seeking for permission to have the elections videographed. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, two videographers as suggested by the petitioner were allowed to cover the events. After the event, when the bills were submitted, the petitioner did not honour the same, under which circumstances the payment was effected by the concerned Co-operative Bank and the original of the video/CD has been kept at the hands of the Returning Officer, as ordered by this Court. It is also stated that a copy of the CD has already CCC Nos. 995 & 998 of 2009 -:3:- been handed over to the Bank, to be handed over to the petitioner, on payment of the bills. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the direction given was to permit the petitioner to have the elections videographed and not to have it arranged through the Returning Officer. We find it difficult to accept the above submission, as the direction given was categoric, more so, when the Returning officer was directed to retain the original video/CD with him and to serve only a copy of the same to the petitioner. We do not find any merit in the Contempt Petition No.995 of 2009 and it is dismissed accordingly. 6. With regard to the Contempt Petition No.980 of 2009, the 1st respondent had filed an affidavit stating that the direction given by this Court, to grant police protection, has been complied with in toto and there was no untoward incident in connection with the election. The deployment of the police force with sufficient number of police personnel has been explained in paragraph 4, while the events and developments have been explained in paragraphs 5 and 6 as well, which are as given below: CCC Nos. 995 & 998 of 2009 -:4:- “5. The polling commenced at 8 am itself. Cherthala Government Town L.P. School was the polling station. 12 polling booths were arranged in the polling station. No untoward incident or violence took place inside the polling station. Before commencing the polling process, an incident occurred at about 6.45 am wherein one Rajendraprasad was attached by Biju and others and inflicted minor injuries. This incident occurred before the deployment of police personnel at the polling station. Police reached the spot immediately and prevented further clashes. Regarding this, a case was registered as Crime No.652/09 under Sections 143, 147, 149, 341, 506(1) and 323 IPC on the strength of a statement given by Rajendraprasad on 09.08.09. Another case was also registered as Crime No.654/09 under Sections 143, 147, 149, 41, 427, 506 (1) and 323 IPC on the strength of statement given by one Soyimon, in which Rajendraprasad and other are the accused. Both the cases are being investigated by Sub Inspector of Police, Cherthala. The incident too place near the Post Office Junction, which is about 500 meters away from the polling station. It had not affected election and the polling process. 6. In the School compound, where the polling took place, no untoward incident of any nature had occurred. Nobody was arrested or removed by the police from the polling station. Voters were allowed to enter to school compound though the single gate of the school. To prevent unauthorized entry and to effectively control the voters, a barricade was put up adjacent to the gate of the School. While the polling process was going on in a smooth manner without any obstruction, at about 11.15 am a group of around 20 persons came to the polling station shouting slogan. They attempted to create troubles at the polling station. CCC Nos. 995 & 998 of 2009 -:5:- Police blocked them at the barricade itself. They were arrested and removed as a preventive measure. A petition was received in this regard from the Returning Officer. Police registered a case against them,under Sect6ion 151 Cr.PC, evidenced by Annexure H FIR. The arrested persons were released on bail from the Police Station at about noon. After this, no complaint was received from anybody. There was no obstruction to the polling. Police maintained law and order in and around the polling station.” On going through the materials on record we find that, there is no contumacious act on the part of the respondent and no further proceedings are to be pursued by this Court. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, the Election Dispute is pending before the Election Tribunal. We do not intend to express any opinion in this regard. We find that there is no merit in the Contempt Petition and no further steps are to be pursued herein as well. Accordingly, the same is also dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb CCC Nos. 995 & 998 of 2009 -:6:-