IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 789 of 2010(S) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.4925/2010 DATED 10.6.2010 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ----------------------------- AUGUSTINE GEORGE,S/O.LATE GEORGE, AGED 46,ANAPARAMBIL HOUSE,THALAYOLAPARAMBU.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT(RESIDING AT APARTMENT NO.1D, GOLDEN HEIGHTS APARTMENTS,ELAMKULAM, KADAVANTHARA). BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5: ------------------------------------------- 1. REGI AUGUSTINE,W/O.AUGUSTINE GEORGE, AGED 39,APARTMENT NO.1D,GOLDEN HEIGHTS,APARTMENTS, ELAMKULAM KADAVANTHARA,COCHIN-20. 2. RAJU JOSE,S/O.LATE P.P.JOSE,AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PULLUKATTU VEEDU,CHANGANACHERRY. 3. ROY JOSEPH,W/O.LATE E.P.JOSEPH AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PULLUKATTU VEEDU,CHANGANACHERRY 4. MATHACHAN CHOLIKARA, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER ,CHOLIKARA VEEDU,RAMAPURAM. 5. GEORGE JOSEPH,FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KADAVANTHARA POLICE STATION,NEARBY KADAVANTHARA MARKET, COCHIN-20. R1 BY SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE R5 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ Cont. Case (C) No.789 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. This contempt case is filed complaining that the undertaking given in W.P.(C) No.4925 of 2010 which was disposed of by order dated 10th June, 2010 is being deliberately violated. According to the petitioner, respondents 1 to 4 in the abovementioned writ petition who are none other than the wife and three brothers-in-law of the petitioner herein made a statement before Court in the said writ petition that contrary to the apprehension of the petitioner expressed in the writ petition they had no intention in any way to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. In the instant contempt case the alleged act of contempt is described as follows: “Despite the above 1 to 5 parties went to the petitioner's house at Thalayolaparambu on 17.6.2010 at 3 a.m. and Cont. Case (C) No.789 of 2010 - 2 - trespassed upon the petitioner's house and broke open the house, destroyed the materials therein and also threatened the petitioner's aged aunty. The petitioner was out of station. The above illegalities and atrocities are grave violation of Annexure A1 judgment Hence it amounts to contempt of court.” 2. Apart from the question whether the allegation made by the petitioner is true or not as it depends on appropriate evidence, even assuming for the sake of argument that the allegation is accepted as true, it cannot be said that there is any violation of the undertaking recorded by this Court. When purely private disputes are converted into a public law, issues and applications like the present one are brought to this Court. We see no reason to entertain this contempt case and the same is therefore dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns