IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 1249 of 2011(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36156/2010 Dated 02/12/2010 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------- MOHAN SANKAR, S/O.VAIKATTIL NARAYANAN, VADANAPPALLY AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR (DT), KERALA, RESIDING AT ARJUN VIHAR, KARIKKAD, THRIKKALANGODE (PO), MANJERI, MALAPPURAM (DT). BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR SRI.P.VINODKUMAR SRI.K.S.ARUNDAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 --------------- 1. SANDEEP, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DT., KERALA-680 001. 2. SURENDRAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YRS., THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR (DT), KERALA-680 001. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT. K. MEERA. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No.1249 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C) No. 36156 of 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 16th December , 2011 J U D G M E N T MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner/complainant. 2. Paragraph 4 of the judgment dated 21.12.2010 in W.P. (C) 36156 of 2010 is relevant to consider whether there is any wilful disobedience of the directions of this Court , which reads as under: “We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the party respondents. There is no dispute that there is an order of status quo passed by the Munsiff Court after hearing both sides. An advocate commission was taken out at the time of institution of the suit wherein he took note of the state of CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No.1249 OF 2011 2 construction. The suit related to Plaint -A and B schedule properties. The order of status quo related to plaint A schedule. It is accordingly we notice that in Ext.R4(b) while the learned Judge confirmed the decision of the learned Munsiff directing removal of obstruction, he ordered that the constructions need be removed only from plaint A schedule property.” 3. The entire allegation in the writ petition, what we notice on record, is that the respondents 4 to 6 were responsible in causing some disturbance and alleged trespass, so far as the property of the complainant is concerned. In that context, the above direction came to be made. We also note that there was a decree in O.S.No.505 of 2004 between the present parties. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, no doubt, indicates that some social organization by name SNPHS Samajam attached to the Ganeshamangalam temple were arranging temporary shelter for devotees of Ayyappa, who are proceeding to Sabarimala and are returning from Sabarimala. But it does not indicate that this temporary shelter or roof put CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No.1249 OF 2011 3 up for the so called devotees, is at the instance of the present respondents 4 to 6 in the writ petition. 4. In that view of the matter we cannot stretch the scope of direction given by the Division Bench that whoever causes obstruction to the property of the complainant, the police concerned must give protection to the complainant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no prima facie case is made as such, against dereliction or disobedience of the directions given by the Division Bench in the above writ petition. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are closed. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk