IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.V.K.BALI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2006 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1928 Cont.Case(C).No.1498 of 2006(S) ------------------------------------- JUDGEMENTIN W.P.(C).28776/2006 DATED 17/11/2006 .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS 1 AND 2:- ------------------------------------------- 1. MOHANA PLANICKER, S/O.SANKUNNY PANICKER AGED 55 YEARS, UNNAVEEDU, AVVANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR-3. 2. N.P. THAMPY, S/O.PRASANNA PANICKER, AGED 45 YEARS, NADUVATHEZHATHU HOSUE, KAKKATHURUTHU, ERAMALLOOR P.O., EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND K.BHARATHAN SRI.PRABIN BABU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4:- --------------------------------------------- 1. SRI.JAYARAJ, FATHER'S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SRI. DEVAMANOHAR, FATHER'S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTHIYATHODU POLICE STATION, KUTHIATHODU, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SRI.ANEESH, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTHIYATHODU POLICE STATION, KUTHIYATHODU, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.B.HOOD. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.Bali,C.J. & S.Siri Jagan,J. ------------------------------------- Cont.Case (C).No.1498 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated, this the 1st day of December, 2006 JUDGMENT V.K.Bali,C.J. (Oral) Complaint in the present contempt petition is violation of order dated 17.11.2006 passed by this Court, which reads as follows:- “According to the petitioner police is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner. We are not expressing any opinion regarding the civil disputes between the petitioner and the impleaded party. It is also submitted that suits are pending. So without expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the civil disputes, we direct the police to see that law and order is maintained and police shall not harass the petitioner and their action should be strictly according to law. With the above observations this writ petition is disposed of”. It is the case of the petitioners that issuance of notice, Annexures A5 to A7, would amount to harassment. Cont.Case (C).No.1498 2006 - 2 - 2. We have gone through the notice, Annexures A5 to A7. The petitioners have only been requested to come to the Police Station to have discussion with regard to temple administration. Without commenting as to whether the petitioners may or may not go or even respond to the notice, we do not find any case of harassment of the petitioners at all. Dismissed. V.K.Bali Chief Justice S.Siri Jagan Judge vku/-