IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1102 of 2010(S) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.13593/2009 Dated 26/05/2009 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P(C) --------------------------------------- P.K.THRIVIKRAMAN, SAROVARAM, NAVAYIKULAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 603. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT 4 TO 6 IN W.P(C) ---------------------------------------------------- 1. JAYAN, AGED 37 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 2. MADUSOODANAN PILLAI, S/O.GANGADHARAN PILLAI, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, RESIDING AT M.A.NIVAS, NAVAIKULAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAIM DISTRICT, PIN-695 603. 3. MANU, S/O.MADUSOODANAN PILLAI, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, RESIDING AT M.A.NIVAS, NAVAIKULAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAIM DISTRICT, PIN-695 603. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ Cont. Case (C) No. 1102 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.13593 of 2009 mainly for police protection wherein an interim order as borne out by Annexure A1 was passed directing the 4th respondent Sub Inspector of Police to give necessary protection to the life of the petitioner and the members of his family for a period of two weeks, simultaneously ordering urgent notice to the respondents by special messenger. Subsequently, on completion of service of notice, the matter was again moved on 26.5.2009, when the interim order passed earlier was made absolute and the writ petition was closed. 2. The petitioner is now before this Court alleging contempt, stating that the respondents have given only scant regard to the direction issued by this Court and that, inspite of filing Cont. Case (C) No.1102 of 2010 - 2 - Annexure A3 complaint, no sufficient protection has been offered to the petitioner. 3. Going by the materials borne out by the records, the grievance expressed by the petitioner in Annexure A3 is more with regard to the displacement of the 'boundary stones' of the property, which according to the petitioner was subsequently replaced, inspite of which the same was again shifted from the concerned spots by the miscreants making the petitioner to file the said complaint before the police. The specific grievance is to have the boundary stones restored and to continue to give effect to the verdict passed by this Court as per Annexure A2. 4. The dispute/complaint with regard to the displacement of boundary stones or as to the replacement sought to be effected by the petitioner with regard to the boundary, has to be got remedied by way of other appropriate proceedings before such other appropriate forum; which is not liable to be got enforced, alleging any contumacious act on the part of the Cont. Case (C) No.1102 of 2010 - 3 - respondents, through this contempt of court case. 5. In the absence of any contumacious act specifically pleaded or established on the part of the contemnors, interference is declined and the Contempt of Court Case is dismissed, however without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue other appropriate remedy. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns