IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 950 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11880/2010 Dated 07/04/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- KANNAN.V.V., S/O.VINOD, AGED 22 YEARS, PALLIVILA VEEDU, VATTAKARIKONAM, PANDALACODE, VATTAPPARA (VIA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SAJIMON, AGED 38 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKUTTOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- Cont.Case (Civil)No.950 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran,J. The petitioner in W.P(C)No.11880 of 2010 has filed this Contempt Case alleging that the respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kazhakuttom Police Station has willfully disobeyed Annexure I interim order passed therein. By Annexure I interim order passed in W.P(C)No.11880 of 2010 this Court directed the Sub Inspector of Police, Kazhakuttom Police Station to provide adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner as against respondents 5 to 10 therein. This Court however clarified that neither the pendency of the said writ petition nor the interim order passed therein shall stand in the way of the investigation of the crimes registered against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner alleges that though Annexure I order was served on the respondent on various occasions thereafter, respondents 5 to 10 in the writ petition attempted to manhandle him and that the respondent deputed a Police Constable to accompany the petitioner only on a single day. It is stated that on 7.6.2010 the petitioner was Cont.Case (Civil)No.950 of 2010 -:2:- assaulted by respondents 5 to 10, that he was hospitalised and was treated in the General Hospital, Trivandrum, that Crime No.405 of 2010 of Kazhakuttom Police Station was registered against the assailants and that as a counter blast Crime No.403 of 2010 of Kazhakuttom Police Station was registered against the petitioner at the instance of respondents 5 to 10 in the writ petition. It is also stated that on account of the failure of the respondent to provide police protection to the petitioner, he is not able to attend the classes. 3. The respondent has sworn to an affidavit dated 12-8-2010. It is stated that pursuant to Annexure I order passed by this Court the petitioner was given adequate police protection. It is stated that the incident that took place on 7-6-2010 was reported to the Police only on 9-6-2010 and that the petitioner had gone to College on 7-6-2010 without informing the Police contrary to the instructions given by the Police. It is stated that based on the complaint that on 7-6-2010 the petitioner assaulted a junior student by name Sravan, Crime No.394 of 2010 of Kazhakuttom Police Station has been registered against him and that the said crime is under investigation. 4. It is evident from the stand taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit that pursuant to Annexure I order which was passed Cont.Case (Civil)No.950 of 2010 -:3:- on 7-4-2010 the petitioner was granted adequate police protection. Later, when the Police felt that the threat to the petitioner had ceased the petitioner was asked to inform the Police as to the specific days on which he would be going to the College. The petitioner was also asked to inform the Police if he apprehends any trouble so that adequate protection can be granted to him. It is also evident from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent that the petitioner had gone to the College on 7.6.2010 without informing the Police and that the incident that took place on 7.6.2010 was reported only on 9.6.2010. The respondent has also denied the petitioner's statement that he has not gone to College from 13.6.2010 onwards and has also stated that in the light of Annexure I order police protection will not be denied to the petitioner. 4. We heard Sri.D.Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.K.Meera, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. In our considered opinion in the light of the stand taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit and the assurance held out by him that in view of Annexure I interim order police protection will not be denied to the petitioner, no further Cont.Case (Civil)No.950 of 2010 -:4:- orders are called for in this Contempt Case. We are also satisfied with the explanation offered by the respondents that the incident that took place on 7.6.2010 happened for the reason that the petitioner had gone to the College without informing the Police. In such circumstances we find no grounds to entertain this Contempt Case. It is accordingly closed. J.CHELAMESWAR, Chief Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- Cont.Case (Civil)No.950 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 19th August, 2010