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 TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 549 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.559/2005 Dated 18/10/2005 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- A.K.ACHUTHAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.VELUKKUTTY, RESIDING AT KANNAMPARAMBU HOUSE, CHERUVADI P.O., MAVOOR VIA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.SIJI ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1&4: ------------------------------- 1. SURESH, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, MUKKOM POLICE STATION, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. KONNALATH MAMMED, S/O.MOHAMMED (AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), KANNAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERUVADI P.O., MAVOOR VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 BY SR.G.P.SMT.K.MEERA R2 BY ADV.SRI.K.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Contempt case (Civil)No.549 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. This contempt application is filed complaining that an order of this Court dated 18th October, 2005 is deliberately violated by the first respondent Sub Inspector and also the second respondent, a private party. The order of this Court dated 18th October, 2005 is a cryptic order which reads as follows: “This is a petition for police protection. According to the petitioner, the Panchayat authorities forcibly encroached the property for constructing a road. The Taluk Surveyor is also prevented from measuring the property. In the circumstances, the police is directed to give adequate protection to secure the property and the Panchayat shall not cut a road over the petitioner's property without obtaining his consent or otherwise than under due process of law. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.” Now, in the year 2010, the petitioner complains that there is violation of the said order. Under section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the period of limitation is one year from the date of the alleged act of contempt. Cont.Case (C)No.549/2010 2 According to the petitioner herein, the second respondent attempted to interfere with the person or property of the petitioner on 22.3.2009. The present contempt case is filed on 8.4.2010 which is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act. To get over such an objection, the petitioner makes a further allegation that the attempt to interfere with the person or property of the petitioner was repeated by the second respondent on 9.5.2009 again. Assuming it to be true, the petitioner is still bound to explain why he kept quiet for a period of almost an year, even reckoning from 9.5.2009, to bring it to the notice of this Court that the order of this Court is violated. Apparently, it is an allegation made to suit the convenience of the petitioner to get over the objection of limitation. We are of the opinion that the present contempt petition is only an abuse of process of the Court and is therefore dismissed at the admission stage with costs Rs.1000/-. The costs shall be paid to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee Cont.Case (C)No.549/2010 3 within two weeks from today failing which it is open to the Committee to recover the same from the petitioner. J.CHELAMESWAR Chief Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS