IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1310 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.17457/2008 DATED 12/06/2008 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER:- -------------------------------------- PROF.P.C. JAMES, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O CHACKO, PRINCIPAL, NIRMALA COLLEGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:- ------------------------------------------------------- 1. MR. N.SUDHEESH, AGED 45 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. MR.BIJU K. STEEPHEN, AGED 40 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), PRESENTLY WORKING AS CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C) No.1310 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 22nd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Complainant in this contempt petition is the Principal of a Private College. He is before this Court in W.P.(C) No.17457 of 2008, inter alia, requesting this Court to direct respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition to afford police protection for smooth functioning of Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha without any hindrance or obstruction from respondents 3 to 5 or their men, pending disposal of the writ petition. 2. The writ petition was posted before this Court on 12.6.2008 and on that day while issuing emergent notice to the respondents, we had also issued an interim order. In the said interim order, we had directed the police authorities to give adequate police protection to the petitioner for the smooth functioning of Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha. The said order was made known to respondents 1 and 2 only on 17.6.2008. 3. Immediately thereafter, the respondents have deputed enough and more police constables in the college for its smooth functioning. 4. In spite of the adequate police protection that was given Cont. Case (C)No.1310 of 2008 2 to the Principal, for smooth functioning of the College, the petitioner is before us in this contempt petition, inter alia, alleging that respondents 1 and 2 have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court on 12.6.2008. 5. When the matter was posted before us for admission, we had directed Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Government Advocate, to obtain appropriate instructions from respondents 1 and 2. 6. On instructions, Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Government Advocate, would submit that the Principal of the College had filed an undated complaint to the first respondent on 2.9.2008, inter alia, alleging that the respondents Anish Mathew and Anish Chandran had entered into the Post-graduate classes and threatened the students, and requesting him to provide police protection. 7. Immediately after receipt of the complaint from the Principal of the College, a case was registered by the first respondent in No.PTN/3378/08 MS and the same has been forwarded to the Station House Officer, Muvattupuzha. 8. The Principal had also lodged a complaint on 22.8.2008 making the very same allegations against Anish Mathew and Anish Chandran. Once again, this complaint has been registered and thereafter Cont. Case (C)No.1310 of 2008 3 forwarded to the Station House Officer, Muvattupuzha for necessary action. 9. Learned Government Advocate, on instructions, would further submit that right from 17.6.2008 till 5.9.2008, respondents 1 and 2 had deployed enough police constables in the petitioner's college for its smooth functioning. 10. This Court can take appropriate proceedings against the respondents provided they have deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court. 11. In the instant case, after going through the averments made by Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Government Advocate, on instructions, we are of the opinion that the police authorities at no point of time have either deliberately or wilfully disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court. We say so for the reason that immediately after receipt of the interim order passed by this Court, the respondents have deployed police force right from 17.6.2008 till 5.9.2008. In spite of affording sufficient police protection, the petitioner, for reasons best known to him, has approached this Court with this contempt petition. In our opinion, this is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court by the petitioner. Cont. Case (C)No.1310 of 2008 4 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the contempt petition on the ground that the respondents have complied with the orders and directions issued by this Court. While permitting him to withdraw the contempt petition, in our opinion, for unnecessarily making allegations against respondents 1 and 2, the petition requires to be permitted to be withdrawn with exemplary costs. 13. Accordingly, we direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rupees ten thousand towards costs to the fund of the Kerala Legal Services Authority within two weeks time from today. If such deposit is not made as directed by us, the District Collector, Ernakulam is authorised to initiate appropriate revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner to recover the aforesaid amount. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns