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 WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 844 of 2009 (S) ------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5910/2006 Dated 21/03/2006 .................... PETITIONER : PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- NALINIKUTTY AMMA, AGED 65 YEARS W/O.LATE MADHAVAN PILLAI, PUTHUPARAMBU VEEDU, VAZHAPPALLY WEST, THURUTHY P.O., CHANGANASSERRY. BY SMT.NALINIKUTTY AMMA,PARTY-IN-PERSON RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SRI.ASHOK KUMAR, DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. SRI.ANEESH P.KORA, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANASSERY. 3. SRI.NISHADMON, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANASSERRY. 4. SRI.VENUGOPAL, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont.Case (C) No.844 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of October 2009 JUDGMENT A.K.BASHEER, J. This contempt case has been filed alleging that the direction to afford police protection to the petitioners in W.P.No.5910/2006 is not being complied with. 2. When this petition came up for consideration, the Sub Inspector of Police was directed to appear with the relevant records. He stated before us that adequate police protection was being afforded to the petitioner and her family members. There was no lapse on the part of the police as alleged in the petition. 3. When this petition came up for further consideration on October 12, 2009, we directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kottayam to file a report as regards the grievance highlighted by the petitioner. 4. In the said report, the officer has stated that there is no law and order problem in the area warranting the presence of the Police to protect the life and property of the petitioner. The police personnel posted at petitioner's residence since March 2006 were constantly harassed by the petitioner and her children. This Court by judgment dated October 7, 2008 in W.P.29090/2008 had directed the Superintendent of Police to review the situation and take appropriate action. Police personnel were withdrawn on June 23, 2009 after due notice to the petitioner (Annexure VI) since the situation was quite normal. However, it is stated by the officer that appropriate action will be taken if and when any complaint is received from the petitioner. Cont.Case (C) No.844 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 5. It is also pointed out by the officer that in connection with a dispute as regards right of way, the relationship between the petitioner and her neighbours does not appear to be smooth. Three crimes are pending against the neighbours, and two crimes against the petitioner and her sons. The crime numbers and the offences involved in those crimes have been mentioned in the report. It is reiterated by the officer that there is no need for police protection to the petitioner and her family at present as against her neighbours. 6. We have heard the petitioner and her two daughters who are present in court. We have also perused the entire materials available on record. Police protection was afforded from March 2006 till June 2009. It was withdrawn pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.29090 of 2008. 7. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the action taken by the police in the matter so far, cannot be faulted. Since we do not find any violation of the direction issued by this court in the judgment in W.P.No.5910/2006, the Contempt of Court Case is closed. (S.R.BANNURMATH) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes