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 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 302 of 2010(Y) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.28758/2009 Dated 04/11/2009 .................... PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER IN WPC: ------------------------------------------- MOLLYKUTTY JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.JOSEPH, KADAMTHODE HOUSE, CHEERANCHIRA KARA AND POST, VEROOR MURI, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WPC: ------------------------------------------------- 1. NISHADMON, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, (WHOSE FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATION, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. JOHNSON JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS (WHOSE FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANACHERRY CIRCLE, CHANGANACHERRY. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, CJ. & P.N.Ravindran, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 302 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. The first petitioner in WP(C) No.28758 of 2009 has filed this Contempt Case under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that respondents 1 and 2 herein who are the Sub Inspector of Police, Changanacherry Police Station and the Circle Inspector of Police, Changanacherry Circle respectively, have failed to afford adequate police protection to her and to her neighbour to remove soil from their properties on the strength of Ext.P1 permit. 2. By Annexure A1 judgment delivered on 05.11.2009, a Division Bench of this Court directed the Police to grant adequate police protection to the petitioners in WP(C) No.28758 of 2009 to remove soil on the strength of Ext.P1 permit without fail. It is alleged that respondents 1 and 2 failed to give necessary police protection to the petitioners from 22.10.2009 onwards for removal of earth. COC No. 302 of 2010 -:2:- 3. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein he has stated that the petitioner attempted to remove soil from the lands without informing the police on 22.02.2010, that it was objected to by some persons, that upon receipt of information regarding obstruction to the removal of soil, the police rushed to the spot and gave necessary protection for removal of soil and that 14 loads of soil was removed that day. It is further stated that on 24.02.2010 also without informing the police, the petitioners removed soil, that it was objected to by certain persons and that on being informed, necessary police protection was given and 13 loads of sand was removed. The counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent discloses that police protection was given to the petitioners to remove soil. It is also stated that validity of Ext.P1 permit expired on 27.02.2010. 4. When the Contempt Case came up for consideration on 21.05.2010, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to submit a report regarding the total strength of Changanassery Police Station. Pursuant to the said direction, the Sub Inspector of Police, Changanassery has submitted a report dated COC No. 302 of 2010 -:3:- 23.05.2010. The report discloses that there are only 30 Police Constables attached to Changanassery Police Station and that notwithstanding the shortage, necessary police protection was afforded to the petitioner on 22.02.2010, 23.02.2010, 24.02.2010, 25.02.2010, 26.02.2010 and 27.02.2010. The report also discloses that on 25.02.2010 21 police personnel led by the Circle Inspector of Police had given police protection to the petitioner and on 26.02.2010, 16 police personnel led by the Sub Inspector had given police protection. As noticed above, only 30 Police Constables are attached to Changanassery Police Station. More than half of them were deputed to give police protection to the petitioner. The Police have to render assistance to the other persons residing within the local limits of Changanassery Police Station. Police have also to investigate various crimes. The police have also to maintain law and order. The petitioner cannot, in our opinion, insist that the entire police machinery available in Changanassery Police Station should have been deployed to afford police protection. From the materials on record it is clear that respondents had afforded necessary police COC No. 302 of 2010 -:4:- protection to the petitioner within the limits of their means. We are therefore of the considered opinion that respondents have not failed to discharge their duties and have also not failed to comply with the directions of this Court. This Contempt Case is, in our view, an abuse of the process of this Court. The petitioner who does not have a valid permit to remove soil after 27.02.2010 is not justified in filing this Contempt Case on 01.03.2010 alleging denial of police protection. We accordingly dismiss the Contempt Case with costs which we fix at Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks from today, failing which it will be open to the High Court Legal Services Committee to recover the same from the petitioner in accordance with law. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ttb COC No. 302 of 2010 -:5:-