IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 494 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.37538/2009 ) .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN WP(C) ----------------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH KUMAR,S/O.NATARAJA PANICKER, AGED 30 YEARS,SURESH BHAVAN,MANNANVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,MARANALLOOR,RASSALPURAM.P.O,BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,NATARAJA PANICKER. 2. NATARAJA PANICKER,S/O.KUTTAN, AGED 58 YEARS,SURESH BHAVAN,MANNANVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MARANALLOOR,RASSALPURAM.P.O,BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IN WP(C) ----------------------------------------- 1. VIDYADHARAN,(AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION,VIZHINJAM.P.O. 2. PRAKASH,(AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOVALAM POLICE STATION,KOVALAM.P.O. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT. K. MEERA. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No. 494 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C)No. 37538 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 28th November, 2011 J U D G M E N T MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ. This Court by order dated 05.01.2010 proceeded to pass the following: “Though notice was served, none appeared. It is seen that in execution of the decree passed in favour of the petitioners, delivery of the property was effected as evidenced by Ext.P2. But, still the property could not be enjoyed because of the obstruction at the instance of respondents 3 and 4. Hence, this Court has passed an interim order to maintain law and order. Unless Ext. P2 is set aside or redelivery order in any legal proceedings, no obstruction can be caused CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No. 494 OF 2011 2 by the respondent to thwart a court proceedings. In the above circumstance, by any further proceedings by the Civil Court unless and so far as Ext.P2 is not interdicted, the police shall give necessary protection to abide by the delivery effected as per Ext.P2.” 2. The complaint seem to be that in the month of March 2011, after 14 months from the date of the order, there seems to be some disturbance to the possession of the property held by the complainant herein. According to him, he approached the concerned police. Depending upon the nature of the complaint, the police have to consider the complaint and act in accordance with the procedure. If the complainant feels that a new relief has to be given in the Contempt proceedings, the same cannot be given as the so called obstruction referred to by him as noted in the order dated 05.01.2010, was removed by the concerned police and he is complaining obstruction subsequent to compliance of the direction . Even otherwise, the obstruction was noted at the instance of the respondents 3 and 4. In the CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No. 494 OF 2011 3 complaint before us there is no complaint of any obstruction as such, at the instance of the respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition, who are none other than the Circle Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of Police concerned. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no specific direction could be given to the respondents in this matter. If at all, the complainant desires to get a modification of the order, he is at liberty to do so. Accordingly, the Contempt proceedings are dropped. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk