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 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1496 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20514/2010 Dated 14/07/2010 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- NAVAS.M.S, S/O.SAINALABDEEN, AGED 34 YEARS, M.V.HOUSE, T/C 39/1331, CHALAI P.O., MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WPC: -------------------------------------------------- 1. M.R.AJITH KUMAR, (FATHER'S NAME AGE AND RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) NOW WORKING AS CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM CITY. 2. A.ABDUL RAHIM, (FATHER'S NAME, AGE AND RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), NOW WORKING AS CIRCLE INPSECTOR OF POLICE, FORT POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1496 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was with the following reliefs: “i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner from the hands of 3rd respondent and his henchmen. ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to register a crime against the 3rd respondent on the basis of Exhibit.P5 complaint.” 2. During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that there was a dispute pending between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and a civil suit was pending before the concerned Civil Court, wherein Ext.P4 interim injunction was granted by the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. After final hearing, the matter was disposed of directing the matter pending before the Civil Court to be finalised, untrammelled by anything contained in the COC No. 1496 of 2010 -:2:- judgment; simultaneously, making the interim order passed in the writ petition absolute. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interim order was to afford police protection to the life of the petitioner. 3. The case now projected in the Contempt Case is that there is wilfull disobedience on the part of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in spite of pointing out the facts and figures before the concerned respondent as to the atrocities of the 3rd respondent, no action has been taken by them and the life of the petitioner is in peril. 4. On going through the records, it is obvious that the rights and liberties of the parties were not adjudicated by this Court and no positive direction was given in this regard, because of the pendency of the Civil Suit before the concerned Civil Court. Annexure D petition was preferred by the petitioner before the respondent, specifically with the request in the following terms: “In the above circumstances I humbly request your good self to kindly remove Mr.Abdul Jaleel from the shop room and implement the order of the Hon'ble Court.” COC No. 1496 of 2010 -:3:- 5. There was no direction given in Annexure A judgment, directing the respondents/police authorities to remove the 3rd respondent from the shop room and no positive finding was rendered with regard to the possession of the parties concerned. If Ext.P4 interim order of injunction is violated in any manner, it is for the aggrieved party to approach the Civil Court itself, in respect of the violation, for appropriate relief, under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. 6. It appears that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above Contempt Case as a 'short cut' method, without any specific pleading as to what amounts to contumacious act on the part of the respondent/Circle Inspector of Police, who was the 2nd respondent in the writ petition. In other words, the attempt of the petitioner is only to cause the 3rd respondent to be evicted or forced out with the help of the police, under the guise of implementation of the direction contained in Annexure A verdict, which cannot be permitted to be pursued in any manner. In the above circumstances, we dismiss the contempt COC No. 1496 of 2010 -:4:- Petition as devoid of any merit, with a cost of `5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb