IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1209 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.21101/2008 Dated 30/07/2008 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- JOHN JACOB, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI.P.P. JACOB, PROPRIETOR, M/S. PEPTURN INDIA, RESIDING AT MATTAKKEL PERUMAL BHAVAN, COLLECTORATE.P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN RESPONDENTS: 4TH RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- NISHAD, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETR. WORKING AS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANASSERY. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Case (C) No.1209 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of August 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, C.J. Alleging that the respondent/contemnor has disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this court in Writ Petition No.21101 of 2008 dated 30-7-2008, petitioner in the writ petition is before us in this contempt petition. 2. The orders passed by this court reads as under: “The learned Government Pleader submitted that a crime has already been registered against the 5th respondent and others. The police is bound to take preventive action in this matter. Therefore, if any, further obstruction is caused by the 5th respondent, the petitioner may inform the 4th respondent. In that event, the 4th respondent shall render necessary protection to the petitioner. But, this protection will not enable the petitioner to do the construction if the same is ordered to be stopped by any of the statutory authorities.” Cont. Case (C) No.1209 OF 2008 :: 2 :: 3. Petitioner has sent a complaint on 19-8-2008 to the Sub Inspector of Police, Changanassery. 4. Immediately after sending the complaint by post, next day itself he has filed this contempt petition. 5. In our opinion, the petition filed by the petitioner is premature. The complainant should have given some time to the Police Officer to react on the complaint lodged by the petitioner. Therefore, in our opinion, for the present we need not have to take cognizance of this contempt petition. Accordingly, the contempt petition is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes