IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 893 of 2009(S) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- MR.VIJU P.V., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.P.R.VIKRAMAN, PUTHUSSERIL HOUSE, EDACOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI-6, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. MR.JACOB PUNNOSE, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O.PUNNOSE, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MR.S.SREEJITH, IPS, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. RAMA PANIKER, PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE CITY, KOZHIKODE. BY ASST. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.K.K.RAVINDRANATH THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. -------------------------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C) No.893 of 2009 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. The present contempt petition is filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.18058 of 2007 as the Division Bench by the said order directed the Director General of Police as follows: “The Director General of Police is directed to look into the commissions and omissions of the 11th respondent in occupying the building covered by Ext.P1 and the induction of two tenants, respondents 12 and 13. If it appears to the DGP that those matters disclose materials for taking disciplinary action against the 11th respondent, he shall bring it to the notice of the disciplinary authority to take appropriate action against 11th respondent in accordance with law. The DGP shall also enquire into the complicity of the police officers stationed in Cochin city in Cont. Case (C) No.893 of 2009. - 2 - the occupation of the building in question by the 11th respondent. If they have acted contrary to law, appropriate action shall be taken against the officers concerned also. The petitioner is entitled to get costs, which is quantified as Rs.25,000/-. This shall be paid by the 11th respondent.” It is alleged in the contempt petition that this direction has not been complied with. 2. On issuance of notice, the Director General of Police has filed his counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit narrating in detail that after giving opportunity to the complainant/petitioner herein, an enquiry has been conducted and necessary report has been forwarded to the Government. The holding of such an enquiry is not disputed by the complainant. Since the only direction that this Court has issued in the writ petition is to hold enquiry and that has been complied with, we do not find that there is any disobedience, much less wilful Cont. Case (C) No.893 of 2009. - 3 - disobedience, so as to initiate contempt proceedings. As the contempt petition is misconceived, the same is rejected. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns