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 MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 651 of 2010(S) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.9397/2010 DATED 24.3.2010 .................... PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER --------------------------------- RAJENDRAN S. @ BABU, S/O. SEKHARAN, AGED 51 YEARS, KAVARATHU VEEDU, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENTS/1ST, 2ND & 3RD RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SMT.HARSHITA ATTALURI. IPS, (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE WAS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. SRI.VIJAYAN, (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE WAS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 3. SRI.T.B.VINOD KUMAR, (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE WAS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ Cont. Case(C) No.651 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. By Annexure-I judgment delivered on 24th March, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.9397 of 2010, a Division Bench of this Court directed respondents 1 and 2 therein who are Superintendent of Police, Kollam and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karunagappally, Kollam to afford adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and his wife as and when required. This Court also directed that the petitioner's daughter be given police protection to enable her to appear for the ongoing SSLC Examination. 2. The case set out in this contempt case is that though this Court had directed the Police to give adequate protection to the petitioner and his wife, cases have been registered against him and thereby the respondents have violated the direction issued by this Court. There is no averment in the contempt case that the Police Cont. Case (C) No.651 of 2010 - 2 - have not given protection to the petitioner and his wife. There is also no case that the petitioner's daughter could not appear for the SSLC Examination since no protection was given. The mere fact that cases have been registered against the petitioner after Annexure-I judgment was delivered, cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that the Police have not granted adequate police protection to the petitioner or his wife. In such circumstances, we find no grounds to entertain this contempt case. It is accordingly dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns